Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

china-UAV-conf-10.jpg

china-UAV-conf-09.jpg

china-UAV-conf-08.jpg

china-UAV-conf-07.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

This is a discussion on Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Sea Toby While the bulk of Australia's forces are on the southeast coast, there are many bases ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 16 votes, 4.25 average.
Old January 9th, 2008   #601
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 74
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Toby View Post
While the bulk of Australia's forces are on the southeast coast, there are many bases on its north coast, both empty and used especially near its northern city of Darwin. Much of the Australian forces have as much distance to travel to meet any Indonesian threat as Indonesia. There isn't much in-between, but harsh desert. Indonesia faces seas which don't have much of anything either.

Any amphibious threat will be engaged before the threat ever reached the shores of Australia. F-117s don't have much more range than a Hornet, Super Hornet, and/or Lightning II. Yes, the F-111's range will be missed, but with air tankers the range don't matter anymore.
To invade Australia, one would take Tasmania and use it as an Aircraft Carrier. That possibility is still on the books and included in current strategy.

However, if you could take out Aus and NZ airforces, before the US could get Phillipines/Japan/Coral Sea assets going, you could invade with 20,000 troops and hold the joint for a fair while.

We are lucky that we are surrounded by millions of square miles of nothing, any threat from marine forces would be detected that far in advance it wouldnt be funny.

I spose you could try and hide 20,000 marines in a Car Carrier, but even that would be detected before it began thanks to technology.

We do not share any land borders, so we are immune from conventional incursions/invasions.

It was good to read that the new Govt. is considering considering scrapping the order book and starting anew and will contemplate looking at Sukois, but as we all know, that would never happen.

I just want us to stop falliing for all this second hand crap we keep buying and buy the best available for the job, be it a plate or a plane.

We have decided to play in the big boys game, so we have to cop the cost.
mickk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2008   #602
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,579
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickk View Post
To invade Australia, one would take Tasmania and use it as an Aircraft Carrier. That possibility is still on the books and included in ...
To take Tasmania, you have to sail past all the important bits of Australia first, exposing your invasion fleet & their supplies to attack by the RAAF & RAN for a few thousand km. If you can do that, & take Tasmania at the end of it, you've beaten both the RAAF & RAN, & there's no need to take Tasmania; you can go ashore anywhere you want.

Wouldn't it make more sense to invade from the north? Take PNG or Timor Leste or the Solomons as a base, or persuade Indonesia to let you borrow some of their territory?
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2008   #603
Defense Professional / Analyst
Corporal
McTaff's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Ashore
Posts: 158
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
To take Tasmania, you have to sail past all the important bits of Australia first, exposing your invasion fleet & their supplies to attack by the RAAF & RAN for a few thousand km. If you can do that, & take Tasmania at the end of it, you've beaten both the RAAF & RAN, & there's no need to take Tasmania; you can go ashore anywhere you want.

Wouldn't it make more sense to invade from the north? Take PNG or Timor Leste or the Solomons as a base, or persuade Indonesia to let you borrow some of their territory?
Pretty much - unless you are attacking from South Africa and are going polar first, or South America and feel like taking on the RAAF staging out of NZ, then going for Tas is a waste of time.

Best to land near Broome or Darwin with heavy air support, land your bits and pieces and dig in. After that, you can try to maintain a sustained campaign for Perth and FBW, start stockpiles and base a few wings of strike fighters out of the airfields there.

Mind you, you'd have still had to slap down a few Bugs to do it, and punched a hole in the defences already there. Basing out of Timor or PNG is the best way to do it. The trouble is that when not on our soil, but on someone elses other than their own, the RAN/RAAF/Army have to decide whether to mount an amphibious campaign to stamp out the "red" team. Kind of hard when they are hitting you at the same time - not impossible but certainly a pain in the backside.
McTaff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2008   #604
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickk View Post
To invade Australia, one would take Tasmania and use it as an Aircraft Carrier. That possibility is still on the books and included in current strategy.
As evidenced by the "Army move to the North" basing program...

Quote:
However, if you could take out Aus and NZ airforces, before the US could get Phillipines/Japan/Coral Sea assets going, you could invade with 20,000 troops and hold the joint for a fair while.
Well attacking via Tasmania isn't going to do much against RAAF Townsville, Scherger, Darwin, Tindal, Amberley, Williamstown, Pearce and RAN bases in Darwin, Cairns, Fleet Base West and East in Sydney.

Logistically it would be an absolutely hideous option and what strategic benefit could possibly be gained from attempting such an operation?

Quote:
I spose you could try and hide 20,000 marines in a Car Carrier, but even that would be detected before it began thanks to technology.
20,000 seems a bit rich, but what would be the point? They would be completely unsupported...

Quote:
We do not share any land borders, so we are immune from conventional incursions/invasions.
I'm not so sure we are immune, PNG and FNQ are VERY close and I'm sure a competent or reasonably competent force could slip some specwarries in though again, for what purpose I have no idea.

Quote:
It was good to read that the new Govt. is considering considering scrapping the order book and starting anew and will contemplate looking at Sukois, but as we all know, that would never happen.

I just want us to stop falliing for all this second hand crap we keep buying and buy the best available for the job, be it a plate or a plane.

We have decided to play in the big boys game, so we have to cop the cost.

Well at least we are now talking about a RAAF related topic. Why should we look at Sukois?

What "second hand crap" has RAAF been buying?

Strange...
  Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2008   #605
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
lobbie111's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 463
Threads:
To me the Defence forces should have two forces EAST and WEST, with the same strength for example 75 F-35's on each side distributed around the place and 25 Eurofighter/Suhkoi (Raptors if we could).

Anyone invading us will have a hard time even if they invaded unseen (which they won't) because for the force to invade inconspicoulsy you would have to invade the most remote areas of Australia, which they can have really, once we find them we can cut off their supplies and then leave them, in a couple of weeks they'll come running to surrender.
lobbie111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2008   #606
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,787
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger View Post
I'm not so sure we are immune, PNG and FNQ are VERY close and I'm sure a competent or reasonably competent force could slip some specwarries in though again, for what purpose I have no idea.
Depending on the tide mark, there are some PNG islands where you can technically walk to australia. Good luck with the crocs though.....
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2008   #607
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
Depending on the tide mark, there are some PNG islands where you can technically walk to australia. Good luck with the crocs though.....
True, not this little black duck...

Still a "Z force" coming our way could easily come in zodiacs, shoot a few crocs, perhaps blow up a tree or 2, upset Bob Brown and leave again.

Actually I think APA's right. We DO need F-22's and Uber Pigs to counter such a threat!!!

Come back Occum, all is forgiven... :-)
  Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2008   #608
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,942
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickk View Post
To invade Australia, one would take Tasmania and use it as an Aircraft Carrier. That possibility is still on the books and included in current strategy.
The Japanese sent a recce aircraft over Hobart in 1942 but, apart from that, they decided that deploying any forces to take or even harass Tasmania was not worth the effort. Japan had far more powerful expeditionary forces in 1941 than any possible adversary (to Australia) has today.

IMO, the RAAF is far more likely to be involved fighting with allies outside Australia than it is against any invasion force and it should be equipped accordingly. In other words it needs equipment that is compatible with its close allies, that certainly does not include Sukhois.

Tas
________________
Learn from the past. Prepare for the future
Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2008   #609
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
lobbie111's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 463
Threads:
If Australia so decides to get suhkoi's I doubt they will have the same avionics as the basic version and adopt more advanced (speaking about avionics nothing else) western avionics. I saw a video of a vectored thrust suhkoi, it was like watching a ballet, it was great.

As was mentioned in another thread in the forum, someone suggested to convert pigs to unmanned strike/recce craft. This would be great as we will keep our long range strike ability and still be able to project our force way beyond what is planned.

In short, by keeping unmanned or manned F111's we do not need to put F-35's on amphibious ships when there is trouble in our region, we have the force projection we need to cover our troops in our area.

However if like stingray said we will most likly be helping others outside of australia, they would be handy not even to use on ships but to be stored then deployed on land.
lobbie111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2008   #610
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,787
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lobbie111 View Post
If Australia so decides to get suhkoi's
We're not getting sukhois. that was political colour and movement to alert some of the Primes that they're under the gun.

There are a whole series of other systems and projects underway for 2020-2025 release that we are not interested in jeopardising.

We may not be happy with Boeing and Thales, but we definietly won't be buying Sukhoi.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2008   #611
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
lobbie111's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 463
Threads:
I diddnt say we were buying suhkoi's...We might if all of a sudden they are the only option (ie world war 3). Would, with the combined economies of the Oceanic region, would a consortium be able to be produce our own indigenous aircraft design? (I know this wouldn't happen either)

To me I cannot see why the Oceanic region forms a similar idea to the EU and develop region specific equipment but I'm not going to comment further as now I'm getting pollitical.
lobbie111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2008   #612
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 151
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
We're not getting sukhois. that was political colour and movement to alert some of the Primes that they're under the gun.

There are a whole series of other systems and projects underway for 2020-2025 release that we are not interested in jeopardising.

We may not be happy with Boeing and Thales, but we definietly won't be buying Sukhoi.
Of which Systems are you talking?
Navor86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2008   #613
Defense Professional / Analyst
Master Sergeant
barra's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 333
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
To take Tasmania, you have to sail past all the important bits of Australia first,
Some of our Taswegian friends may take exception to this comment. Plenty of good and important things have come out of Tassy, Boony, Ponting (until he upset the Indians anyway ) and that wood chopping chap just to name a few.

I suppose the RAAF's dream team would be a combination of about 30x F-22 and 70X F-35 for a Hi-Lo mix unmatchable in S E Asia. The new Defmin has talked the F-22 up while he was opposition Defence spokesman, lets see how he goes convincing the yanks now that they should sell us some. Maybe he has some photos of Bush with a goat or something because I can't see the yanks changing their position on F-22 sales.

As for shaking up Boeing, Thales and BAE by talking about buying Suhkois, they know damn well such a purchase would be to politically unpalateable for any western govt to consider. They know they don't have to worry about another pig with their snout in the trough. God knows they all need a shake up to start delivering on time and budget.
barra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2008   #614
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 166
Threads:
I hate to say this, but I feel the timing of the review was a bit offputting. The F-22 is one of those aircraft that requires constant heavy duty maintenance and support by US Defence Contractors, not too mention additional assistance from the USAF. I read somewhere these aircraft constantly download its software direct from US Satellites - so it appears that there are quite a of support tiers involved.

I appreciate the notion of operating a fleet of F-22s and F35s - at a combined number of 100 or thereabouts - But is there any solid merit in coughing up more Aussie dollars for what could be an expensive tin god? How much GDP should be dedicated in procuring the F- 22?

PS To Magoo - I couldn't be bothered to add another post, so I edited this a little bit. Also, that wasn't my question. Cheers

Last edited by Mr Ignorant; January 10th, 2008 at 05:30 PM.
Mr Ignorant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2008   #615
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant
Magoo's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 609
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Ignorant View Post
I read somewhere these aircraft constantly download its software direct from US Satellites...
Huh?

Quote:
I appreciate the notion of operating a fleet of F/A 22s...
It's F-22..., or F-22A to be exact...has been for more than two years now.
________________
Lead, follow, or get out of the way!
Magoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:56 PM.