If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:39:41 +1000, "Brash"
wrote: "JD" wrote in message . com... (Defender in Tas) wrote in message .com... [...] I personally like Brash's suggestion of the F-15s. Lease them of the Yanks with a clause that states if the JSF is late, we keep the F-15s for free until the JSF turns up. Fat chance but. Expensive purchase of munitions to begin with, unless what we've got in store are compatible? I'm no expert on air weapons, but I'm fairly sure that since every thing is digitised these days its only a matter of software changes to use different ordnance. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and software changes are a much bigger deal than you might expect. Clearing ordnance for drop is quite a long and involved process that takes quite a time. Unless you are willing to lose aircraft and aircrew finding out the hard way. In a war, you might just have to do that. EG, IIRC, using small bombs in WWII RAAF Bostons, the aerodynamics interactions between these small bombs was discovered by blowing up several aircraft when they dropped their bombs on the enemy. Our current stocks of F111 weapons are most probably compatible with the F15E (or K). Concur, or little trouble at any rate. Some of our munitions have not been directly cleared for use on those aircraft, but US license made versions have been, so unless they are significantly different, it should not be a problem. .... cheers, Paul Saccani, Perth, Western Australia old turkish proverb: 'He who tells the truth gets chased out of nine villages' |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
... Brash wrote: "Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... David Bromage wrote: The RAAF's 35 F-111 warplanes - Australia's front-line strategic strike force - could be retired from service from 2006, a decade earlier than originally planned, if the Government accepts a controversial option put forward by the Defence Department. A key issue is whether early retirement for the long-range F-111s could leave a gaping hole in Australia's front-line defences early next decade. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...55E601,00.html Exactly who does Australia intend 'striking' ? Ships and various targets belonging to "the enemy". I would have thought that was self-evident. And just who might "the enemy" be ? You reckon the Japs fancy having another go for sake of example ? Why shouldn't a 60's design a/c be scrapped ? Because its still better at what it does than anything else for its cost. Maybe that's so... but the task itself is obsolete. Which country does Australia reckon it needs 'front-line a/c' to defend itself from ? The one that decides it can threaten us or our interests. Do please provide a candidate list. In the unrealistic above event how would ancient F-111s perform ? Better than a JSF without in-flight refuelling. Can't say I recall seeing an F-111 perform vertical landing ! Only one of the three variants of JSF does VTOL and it's unlikely to be the variant Australia would ever buy. Heck, the ADF would probably try to fit another seat back in that lift-fan area. -- The Raven http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3 ** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's ** since August 15th 2000. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:19:08 GMT, Paul Krenske wrote:
My preference would be to keep them running until we can actually get hold of some numbers of some extreme range ACAV's. That will be around 2010-15. In old German parlance we need a 4000 kg over 4000 Km at 1000 Kmh airframe. Buy 30+ as bomb trucks and use manned aircraft for the fighter/attack role. ( Not sure about JSF for that but we'll see. ) Since Australia currently operates the F/A-18, it makes sense to buy more of them in the short term, if more are needed. The F-111s could be mothballed, rather than scrapped. For air superiority, in the medium term (2010 onwards) if Indonesia is getting the Su-35 or derivatives, Australia probably wants something better than the F/A-18. I'm not sure either about the JSF, since its power/weight ratio is nothing to write home about. I agree that unmanned vehicles for strike are the way to go. Perhaps Australia could develop its own cruise missile -- if a guy can do so for US$ 5000, I'm sure a medium-size[1] country can. [1] economically speaking. -- A: top posting Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet? |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:19:59 +0800, Paul Saccani wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:15:15 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote: Ships and various targets belonging to "the enemy". I would have thought that was self-evident. And just who might "the enemy" be ? It would not be diplomatic to say who the enemy *might* be. I'm not a diplomat: Indonesia. Possible other threats might include China, Japan (unlikely givenm its current unwarlike nature), and the other countries of South-East Asia. Given the long lead time in such programs, you need 100% certainty that there will be no significant changes in our geo-political circumstances for at least ten years. That is a big ask. One needs to look at the capability that will exist nearby over the next ten years at least, then factor for the low, but non-zero chance of a radical change in circumstances. A worst-case scenario might be China allied with Indonesia, and Australia doesn't have any allies, sometime between 2010-2020. I'd imagine by that time China would have enough advanced aircraft to win air superiority, in which case Australia's best hope to stop an invasion would probably be submarines (firing high-speed cavitating torpedoes) and anti-ship missiles. -- A: top posting Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet? |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"phil hunt" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:19:59 +0800, Paul Saccani wrote: On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:15:15 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote: A worst-case scenario might be China allied with Indonesia, and Australia doesn't have any allies, sometime between 2010-2020. I'd imagine by that time China would have enough advanced aircraft to win air superiority, in which case Australia's best hope to stop an invasion would probably be submarines (firing high-speed cavitating torpedoes) An absolute desperation weapon adopted only the Russians and anti-ship missiles. Reactive instead of proactive defense doesnt work well in this situation, fact is there's no way Austalia would have a hope in hell of intercepting an invasion fleet with submarines unles they have efficient maritime surveillance and that requires air superiority. Sinking the fleet before it leaves home water or in one of the choke points in the Indonesian archipelago is a much better strategy. Keith Keith |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:52:16 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:
"phil hunt" wrote in message ... [...] in which case Australia's best hope to stop an invasion would probably be submarines (firing high-speed cavitating torpedoes) An absolute desperation weapon adopted only the Russians Explain why cavitating torpedos are a desperation weapon, please. and anti-ship missiles. Reactive instead of proactive defense doesnt work well in this situation, fact is there's no way Austalia would have a hope in hell of intercepting an invasion fleet with submarines unles they have efficient maritime surveillance and that requires air superiority. True. But if you don't intercept the invasion fleet (and if it's a surprise attack, it would be hard to), then you can at least intercept the following supply fleets. (Although the invaders might be able to supply from the air). Given that air superiority is obviously a good idea, which aircraft supplies the most air superiority capability per money spent? The F-22 (assuming the USA would sell it)? The F-35? The Typhoon? Something else? Sinking the fleet before it leaves home water or in one of the choke points in the Indonesian archipelago is a much better strategy. Indeed, if possible. -- A: top posting Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet? |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Brash"
wrote: "JD" wrote in message om... (Defender in Tas) wrote in message . com... [...] I personally like Brash's suggestion of the F-15s. Lease them of the Yanks with a clause that states if the JSF is late, we keep the F-15s for free until the JSF turns up. Fat chance but. Expensive purchase of munitions to begin with, unless what we've got in store are compatible? I'm no expert on air weapons, but I'm fairly sure that since every thing is digitised these days its only a matter of software changes to use different ordnance. Our current stocks of F111 weapons are most probably compatible with the F15E (or K). If the weapon uses a -1750 interface then it can be launched from a -1750 compatible platform, with the usual caveats. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
In message , phil hunt
writes On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:52:16 +0100, Keith Willshaw keith@kwil lshaw_NoSpam.demon.co.uk wrote: An absolute desperation weapon adopted only the Russians Explain why cavitating torpedos are a desperation weapon, please. They're LOUD. So, the enemy knows they're coming from the moment you fire; which means they're good counterfire weapons, but not much use if you enjoy an acoustic advantage. Shkval is a means to try to redress "we are noisier than the enemy, and have poorer sonar": it's designed to be a response to hearing "high speed screws, Green 150, torpedo inbound, bearing steady!" For above-water use, you have to get close, because they're unguided. Even at 200 knots, the huge noise signature means the enemy will alter course and speed at once, so long range shots are unlikely to succeed. Like some other Russian weapons, it's an elegant and well-engineered solution to a particular problem they faced, that works much less well when transplanted to other roles and export markets. Given that air superiority is obviously a good idea, which aircraft supplies the most air superiority capability per money spent? The F-22 (assuming the USA would sell it)? The F-35? The Typhoon? Something else? Typhoon for bang-per-buck, F-22 for absolute if costly capability per airframe. Haggle to see what both factions will sell for, and how degraded the 'export version' is. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Saccani wrote in message . ..
EG, IIRC, using small bombs in WWII RAAF Bostons, the aerodynamics interactions between these small bombs was discovered by blowing up several aircraft when they dropped their bombs on the enemy. Isn't that why we developed high drag munitions? ;-) |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Brash" wrote in message u...
Mate, you really don't know a whole lot about aerospace power, do you? Let me guess, ex-army? Excuse me? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
IFR Flight Plan question | Snowbird | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | August 13th 04 12:55 AM |
NAS and associated computer system | Newps | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | August 12th 04 05:12 AM |
Canadian IFR/VFR Flight Plan | gwengler | Instrument Flight Rules | 4 | August 11th 04 03:55 AM |
IFR flight plan filing question | Tune2828 | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | July 23rd 03 03:33 AM |
USA Defence Budget Realities | Stop SPAM! | Military Aviation | 17 | July 9th 03 02:11 AM |