Australia is not ready for war

Status
Not open for further replies.

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
This is how training works in the Islamic World of a mujahid .
The group build a model of a Bushmaster. They select a firing position. Then they practice hitting it in the fuel tank with a weapon that is likely to leave them unhurt, so long range. When the firer can hit the fuel tank several times in a row, they set up a range where the target is moving slowly, maybe 5-10km/h pulled by a winch. The shooter starts his practice again.
Do you have evidence for this? Or is this your opinion? Training large numbers of crews like this requires training areas, and large amounts of munitions. How many well trained ATGM crews do you think the Taliban can put out?

Then, they all go out and drag this canon out to where they think there is a patrol and wait...a day, a week, even a month. Then one of the party goes out and kidnaps a child somewhere, and when the patrol vehicle is coming, they send out this child in front of the vehicle. When the vehicle starts to slow down, the shooter fires just one shot, that hits the fuel tank. As the troops dismount, the ambush party attacks at close range. Then the weapon gets buried and camouflaged, and the entire group disperses to meet elsewhere a day, a week or a month later, and start on their way back to the weapon.
The best tactic agains this is what the Soviet Spetznaz did. On foot they would cover no more than 3 km/h patrolling in open country, exposed to mines and IED's, in temperatures sometimes into the high 40's or minus 10 degrees. They would make any mujahideen be prime targets for a dragunov armed sniper. The patrol's sniper would fire just once. And wait, tracking the mujahideen to fire again, an hour, a day, a week later...just once. The mujahid is not afraid to die, but he is afraid to die without firing back.
Do you honestly think that this is what Soviet operations in Afghan looked like?

If we can build an ICV in two decades we will have equalled the US effort with the Bradley. I think we can do better :)

I have decided to do, rather than talk, so will not participate in this forum actively since talking achieves nothing.
What you mean to say is that you are unable to present your views systematically and coherently. Instead you ramble on, contradict yourself, and make factual errors one after another. Indeed if you were in a position to act on your ideas, I would be sorry for Australia. But I'm pretty sure you're not. Now why don't you get your facts straight, at least in terms of existing platforms and doctrines. And then start to figure out what you think is missing. ;)

I don't know what a 4th generation fighter aircraft is, and neither do you. Frankly I don't care. Air combat is greater than the sum of all those factors you listed, and the best aircraft is the one that gets to land rather than be collected by a garbage truck.
Until the J-10 flies in combat, we won't know.
Actually 4th generation is a set of defined performance parameters, and capabilities. I'm well aware that you don't know what it is, but I do.

And you're absolutely correct, air combat is more then a sum of those factors. Mainly because air combat is fought by a combined force of multiple platforms, attacking against a specific center of gravity within a certain doctrinal arrangement. However air combat is not some mystery. It's a thoroughly analyzable and understandable activity. The fact that you try to discount it as some sort of mystery only highlights your own ignorance.

You obviously have no interest in learning.

You obviously lack specific knowledge in the subject area.

You have very many ideas, but do not have a coherent and well organized system.

Between those 3, I don't see what there is for you to do on these forums so I believe I speak for all when I say good riddance.
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
Do you have evidence for this? Or is this your opinion? Training large numbers of crews like this requires training areas, and large amounts of munitions. How many well trained ATGM crews do you think the Taliban can put out?

Do you honestly think that this is what Soviet operations in Afghan looked like?

What you mean to say is that you are unable to present your views systematically and coherently. Instead you ramble on, contradict yourself, and make factual errors one after another. Indeed if you were in a position to act on your ideas, I would be sorry for Australia. But I'm pretty sure you're not. Now why don't you get your facts straight, at least in terms of existing platforms and doctrines. And then start to figure out what you think is missing. ;)

Actually 4th generation is a set of defined performance parameters, and capabilities. I'm well aware that you don't know what it is, but I do.

And you're absolutely correct, air combat is more then a sum of those factors. Mainly because air combat is fought by a combined force of multiple platforms, attacking against a specific center of gravity within a certain doctrinal arrangement. However air combat is not some mystery. It's a thoroughly analyzable and understandable activity. The fact that you try to discount it as some sort of mystery only highlights your own ignorance.

You obviously have no interest in learning.

You obviously lack specific knowledge in the subject area.

You have very many ideas, but do not have a coherent and well organized system.

Between those 3, I don't see what there is for you to do on these forums so I believe I speak for all when I say good riddance.
Forum - a public meeting or assembly for open discussion

Not a place to present "a coherent and well organized system."

The Taliban do not operate with a Logistics Corps, so it takes them longer to train and set up operations just like the PLO, Hizbullah, and Hamas, but they have richer supporters. Give it time.

You think the Soviets just had convoys going around being blown up all the time?

You don't think that there is some sort of mystery about fighter combat? You clearly disagree with the US DoD who think that not only is there a mystery, but they would rather keep it that way. One mystery is called F-22. Another mystery is the F-35 where the code will be denied in whole or part to even the closest of allies.
Every fighter design and their operators try to impart something new and different that the enemy is not prepared for. That's why Israelis not only make their own software, but hardware for many of the aircraft systems and modify the software. RAAF do it also as far as they are able.

You DO NOT know what a 4th generation fighter is, and here is why.

The first generation fighter was a Second World War design with a jet engine and guns.

The second generation fighter added radar and missiles to the first generation.

The third generation fighter added electronic countermeasures to counter the radar and the missiles, both air and surface launched. This was in the 1970s.

Since then there has been a constant race to evolve these capabilities. By and large there has not been a significant change until the development of materials, and airframes made from them, that allowed greater measure of reducing the radar signature of the aircraft, known as "stealth".

"Fourth generation" became the sales pitch for every upgrade since the 1980s. And sure, the electronics have gotten a lot better since the 1980s. The engines have been redesigned with better materials (but same engineering). The airframes are more reliable, and the missiles are more lethal. This is an expected development. Expected by pilots, and countered by pilots in the attempt to survive. This is called flying skills.

Software and hardware in the aircraft they can't do anything about. The enemy changes one parameter in the missile guidance, and all of a sudden the pilot is trying to outfly a killer robot because his countermeasures may not be configured for that change in guidance. I think this is what you refer to as "a thoroughly analyzable and understandable activity", because no fighter pilot would want to be predictable.

The "4th generation" F-16 begun design during the Vietnam War! It has been so heavily upgraded since then that I bet the service crews from that time would be lost around the current Block F-16. And many countries that fly the F-16s will keep upgrading them for a while yet. The companies that sell these upgrades will call them 4.5 Generation upgrade probably :) or 4.75, or 4.99....maybe someone will even come up with a skin upgrade :)

If I was in a position to act on my ideas, the ADF would buy a lot less second hand stuff, and I guess that would be less business for the US companies.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The Taliban do not operate with a Logistics Corps, so it takes them longer to train and set up operations just like the PLO, Hizbullah, and Hamas, but they have richer supporters. Give it time.
Richer then who?

You think the Soviets just had convoys going around being blown up all the time?
When did I say anything about that? Please do some reading, or demonstrate the knowledge before continuing this discussion.

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books - 1996/Bear Went Over Mountain - Aug 96/BrOrMn.pdf

Lessons Learned from the Soviet Intervention in Afghanistan: Implications for Russian Defense Reform / ISN

You don't think that there is some sort of mystery about fighter combat? You clearly disagree with the US DoD who think that not only is there a mystery, but they would rather keep it that way. One mystery is called F-22. Another mystery is the F-35 where the code will be denied in whole or part to even the closest of allies.
Every fighter design and their operators try to impart something new and different that the enemy is not prepared for. That's why Israelis not only make their own software, but hardware for many of the aircraft systems and modify the software. RAAF do it also as far as they are able.
They are but different values for the variables in the equasion. We don't always know all the values, and can't always solve the equation, but the equation still exists in a solid form. And typically it's lopsided enough to tell. The DoD would like everyone else to remain in the dark, but given American success at employing air power they themselves know far more then you have hithertho demonstrated.

You DO NOT know what a 4th generation fighter is, and here is why.

The first generation fighter was a Second World War design with a jet engine and guns.

The second generation fighter added radar and missiles to the first generation.
Not quite. The second generation added aerodynamic improvements. It also saw primitive SARH and IR guidance missiles. Engine improvements were notable as was the increased specialization of the jet fighters into interceptors, fighter-bombers, etc.

The third generation fighter added electronic countermeasures to counter the radar and the missiles, both air and surface launched. This was in the 1970s.
Advances include analog avionics replacing steam gages, aerodynamic controls such as canards, primitive thrust vectoring (harrier) and STOL technology, as well as major improvements in stand-off weapons. PGMs begin to see wide usage with typically external targetting pods.

Since then there has been a constant race to evolve these capabilities. By and large there has not been a significant change until the development of materials, and airframes made from them, that allowed greater measure of reducing the radar signature of the aircraft, known as "stealth".
"Stealth" or LO and VLO involve more then juts RCS-reduction. They involve controling the IR signature, and emissions. They involve jamming capabilities or stand-off jamming support. In any event just for you, 4th generation implies advanced radars with look-down shoot-down capabilities, advanced analog or early digital avionics, common use of FBW, HUD, HOTAS and IRST.

"Fourth generation" became the sales pitch for every upgrade since the 1980s. And sure, the electronics have gotten a lot better since the 1980s. The engines have been redesigned with better materials (but same engineering). The airframes are more reliable, and the missiles are more lethal. This is an expected development. Expected by pilots, and countered by pilots in the attempt to survive. This is called flying skills.

Software and hardware in the aircraft they can't do anything about. The enemy changes one parameter in the missile guidance, and all of a sudden the pilot is trying to outfly a killer robot because his countermeasures may not be configured for that change in guidance. I think this is what you refer to as "a thoroughly analyzable and understandable activity", because no fighter pilot would want to be predictable.

The "4th generation" F-16 begun design during the Vietnam War! It has been so heavily upgraded since then that I bet the service crews from that time would be lost around the current Block F-16. And many countries that fly the F-16s will keep upgrading them for a while yet. The companies that sell these upgrades will call them 4.5 Generation upgrade probably or 4.75, or 4.99....maybe someone will even come up with a skin upgrade
4.5th generation refers to an aircraft that has developed the sensor suites, some of the avionics and networking capabilities of a 5th gen without the LO airframe.

Your attempts to first oversimplify the generations, and then overly obscure them are strange. Why do you ignore the major evolutions that happened throughout the 3rd generation in terms of flight control surfaces? They changed over the time of the generation and weren't introduced all at once. None the less there is a distinguishable quantum leap in terms of capabilities between the generations with each following generation providing an order of magnitude more.
 

the road runner

Active Member
9 news leak about defence spending

I saw the 6 pm news on 9.Overtone said it was a 9 exclusive.
Seems that Australia will be spending $25 Billion this year on defence.
3% of GDP will be spent on defence over the next 10 years.
Seems like the White paper will be reviewed every 5 years.
Army will be getting new IFV.:D
Announcement will be made tommorow.

Like i have said before, things are looking VERY GOOD for the ADF
Never seen Angus Houston:D so much.

Australia may not be ready for war as some have stated,others think we are,im a bit in the middle.

In the next 10 plus years,we will have a powerful NAVY and AIR FORCE.
In my opinion,in 10-15 years we will be a formidible force....:nutkick

Things are looking very good for the ADF and Happy Houston
Im actually looking forward to BUDGET NIGHT:D
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
Richer then who?
Iranians

There were two SpetzNaz brigades in Afghanistan by 1986. What do you think they were doing there? Neither the book (a translation of articles) nor the short study deal with the work of SpetzNaz which included a "muslim battalion" composed entirely from Central Asian service personnel that operated 'out of uniform'.

They are but different values for the variables in the equasion. We don't always know all the values, and can't always solve the equation, but the equation still exists in a solid form. And typically it's lopsided enough to tell. The DoD would like everyone else to remain in the dark, but given American success at employing air power they themselves know far more then you have hithertho demonstrated.

Not quite. The second generation added aerodynamic improvements. It also saw primitive SARH and IR guidance missiles. Engine improvements were notable as was the increased specialization of the jet fighters into interceptors, fighter-bombers, etc.

Advances include analog avionics replacing steam gages, aerodynamic controls such as canards, primitive thrust vectoring (harrier) and STOL technology, as well as major improvements in stand-off weapons. PGMs begin to see wide usage with typically external targetting pods.

"Stealth" or LO and VLO involve more then juts RCS-reduction. They involve controling the IR signature, and emissions. They involve jamming capabilities or stand-off jamming support. In any event just for you, 4th generation implies advanced radars with look-down shoot-down capabilities, advanced analog or early digital avionics, common use of FBW, HUD, HOTAS and IRST.

4.5th generation refers to an aircraft that has developed the sensor suites, some of the avionics and networking capabilities of a 5th gen without the LO airframe.

Your attempts to first oversimplify the generations, and then overly obscure them are strange. Why do you ignore the major evolutions that happened throughout the 3rd generation in terms of flight control surfaces? They changed over the time of the generation and weren't introduced all at once. None the less there is a distinguishable quantum leap in terms of capabilities between the generations with each following generation providing an order of magnitude more.
Its a forum Feanor, and not a course final test. To clearly see the change in generations, a greater oversimplification helps. This clarity breaks down in the 80s.
Flight control surfaces? There was so much aerodynamic experimentations in the 60s and early 70s that calling the 3rd generation a mutation is probably more appropriate than evolution.

I disagree. The research into "stealth" begun as a means of penetrating Soviet radar networks. Controlling the IR signature and emissions came later, but its academic. After the third generation aircraft sophistication became incremental. Compete type replacement gave way to upgrades.

If anything, the 4th generation is the "upgrade generation", and the 5th generation is the first aircraft built after this generation.

"The DoD would like everyone else to remain in the dark, but given American success at employing air power..." When was that?

I'm not obligated to demonstrate anything (not a circus)
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Right, so according to you then if this is a construct of the pentagon in recent years what type of conflict was Malaya? Remember this type of warfare wasn't invented back in the 1950's. The hundreds killed must just have been a figment of my imagination as is the ASM I received for being deployed to Butterworth in the 80's.

The Pentagon may have appended the label to it, but this type of warfare has been going on for millenia. The place where we take our rubbish was renamed in the 1990's to a Refuse Processing Facility - doesn't change what it is or what it does - ask any local - it's the tip

Note I said suppress - you do not need to hit. All you need to do is distract the firer or obscure his vision by the dust kicked up to have a chance of evading getting hit. It's better than doing nothing. A moder ATGW is going to make mincemeat anyway out of pretty much any armoured vehicle that is not equipped with ERA/bar armour. The key is to spot and destroy dismounted infantry with these weapons before they get a chance to get a shot off in this respect we have a significantly greater surveillance capability than the soviets in the 1980's

Err, yes they did which is why the Dutch Bushies have the additional armour. Correct. An infantry platoon is far more flexible. But on foot they will cover no more than 3 km/h patrolling in open country, are exposed to mines and IED's, in temperatures sometimes into the high 40's or minus 10 degrees. They would also be prime targets for any taleban with a dragunov sniper weapon. Inside a bushie, they are protected from all of those threats, can chose when to advance/withdraw, and it is significantly more difficult to lug a 23mm HMG to effectively engage a bushie than a sniper rifle to engage a digger on foot. In open country diggers remain in the vehicles. In close country, they dismount usually and move dismounted. This is doctrine (or at least it was 16 years ago).

OK, then you must have numerous instances where a sniper has snuck with his '23mm sniper weapon' into a hide and taken out armoured vehicles since 2001. The way warfare was conducted by the soviets has little relevance to the way warfare is being conducted today, so please provide evidence of this threat in recent times.

Thanks for your PM:rolleyes: on your qualifications, I was ...underwhelmed.

Right, so we are at war are we? Under your ideas, there should have been a national callup, possibly a reintroduction of national service or conscription, we should be engaged in crash building projects of all types of armaments (a-la- WW2). If that's the case why have you not presented yourself at the nearest army recruiting office. Having been to one years ago, and my wife who is a serving member working in one last year, I can tell you are very friendly and more than happy to induct you into the services. Given your expertise, I would recommend Army -Infantry. Then you can explain to all those misguided officers who clearly don't know how to employ the weaponry they are given the benefit of your ideas.

What an interesting theory. I'm no guru on islamic matters, but my mate whom I trained with at Uni is Pakistani. He is back in Pakistan and we stay in touch irregularly. He an I have had long chats about the fact that most of the Islamic world consider the Taleban and their interpretation of the koran to be entirely wrong. He considers the taleban and sharia law as being a greater threat to Islam than america. But what would he know - he's only a Pakistani Muslim.

20 years! In 20 years you will have the Afghanistan Liberation Organisation, and Bin Ladin will be its "Arafat".
And who will prevent Taliban from returning after the last NATO soldier departs?

I'm getting too busy again to continue with the subject, so will make this quick. In future I think its more productive to do, rather than to talk in a forum such as this.

Doesn't matter what you call it when the shooting starts. For the record, Australians went to a guerrilla war in Malaya.

If the war in Afghanistan keeps going, Australian troops will find that Taliban do not flinch so easily from bullets fired over a kilometre away. They had in the past, and will again lug heavy weapons around.

My qualifications mean nothing to me, why would they mean anything to you?

This is how training works in the Islamic World of a mujahid .
The group build a model of a Bushmaster. They select a firing position. Then they practice hitting it in the fuel tank with a weapon that is likely to leave them unhurt, so long range. When the firer can hit the fuel tank several times in a row, they set up a range where the target is moving slowly, maybe 5-10km/h pulled by a winch. The shooter starts his practice again. Then, they all go out and drag this canon out to where they think there is a patrol and wait...a day, a week, even a month. Then one of the party goes out and kidnaps a child somewhere, and when the patrol vehicle is coming, they send out this child in front of the vehicle. When the vehicle starts to slow down, the shooter fires just one shot, that hits the fuel tank. As the troops dismount, the ambush party attacks at close range. Then the weapon gets buried and camouflaged, and the entire group disperses to meet elsewhere a day, a week or a month later, and start on their way back to the weapon.
The best tactic agains this is what the Soviet Spetznaz did. On foot they would cover no more than 3 km/h patrolling in open country, exposed to mines and IED's, in temperatures sometimes into the high 40's or minus 10 degrees. They would make any mujahideen be prime targets for a dragunov armed sniper. The patrol's sniper would fire just once. And wait, tracking the mujahideen to fire again, an hour, a day, a week later...just once. The mujahid is not afraid to die, but he is afraid to die without firing back.

We are at war, and eventually you, and everyone in Australia, will get it....maybe a few years from now. Its early days yet.

I am too old, and have a physical disability to serve, but even so, I would serve in whatever role offered if that came to it.

A Pakistani Muslim that went to an Australian Uni! Do you not know anything about the Muslim World?

I'm sure you have read something on the history of Afghanistan, so will just suggest you reread that. There is no "Afghanistan". Its a convenient vacuum left by the British Empire between Sunni and Shi'a.

"Who died and appointed us grand high invader and stabiliser of countries?"
Its not that...we will have to take care of ourselves, that's all.

"We are trying that interventionist /offensive idea you are talking about in Afghanistan - and according to you that's unwinnable." - Afghanistan is not an "intervention", but the most expensive criminal chase in history.

"this incredible amphibious assault force" - this is a strategic force, not a whim-of-the-moment force. Is Fiji a strategic objective, and is its democracy strategically important to Australia? I'd say no. Fiji is a tribal society, and will never have democracy as long as its traditional social structures are intact.

The only things ever built from scratch were the wheel, the stone hammer and a self-bow.
"how much longer is it going to take to design all of these things" - its an ongoing activity, just like the economy.

If we can build an ICV in two decades we will have equalled the US effort with the Bradley. I think we can do better :)

I have decided to do, rather than talk, so will not participate in this forum actively since talking achieves nothing.
Marc1 you got an ASM for RCB Butterworth?.....I didnt.....
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
9 news leak about defence spending

I saw the 6 pm news on 9.Overtone said it was a 9 exclusive.
Seems that Australia will be spending $25 Billion this year on defence.
3% of GDP will be spent on defence over the next 10 years.
Seems like the White paper will be reviewed every 5 years.
Army will be getting new IFV.:D
Announcement will be made tommorow.

Like i have said before, things are looking VERY GOOD for the ADF
Never seen Angus Houston:D so much.

Australia may not be ready for war as some have stated,others think we are,im a bit in the middle.

In the next 10 plus years,we will have a powerful NAVY and AIR FORCE.
In my opinion,in 10-15 years we will be a formidible force....:nutkick

Things are looking very good for the ADF and Happy Houston
Im actually looking forward to BUDGET NIGHT:D
The "new" IFV was budgeted years ago and was supposed to be selected and being introduced initially in c.2012 (LAND400)

The 3% of GDP commitment was a Howard Government commitment! It remained that in dollar terms, but because the economy grew, the actual percentage dropped to just under 2%

Most of that $25b was already spent (budgeted) during Howard years, so what Houston is happy about is probably that nothing was cut, and indeed the doubling of the subs is a surprise, probably more so to the Navy who will now have to find the crews.
I'd say there is a huge increase in the recruitment and retention program budget.

In any case, indeed will be interesting tomorrow from defence perspective
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Marc1 you got an ASM for RCB Butterworth?.....I didnt.....
A mate of mine sent me a message last year after our 20 year RMC reunion:

I'm guessing that you're unaware that you're eligible for the Australian Service Medal - South East Asia; otherwise known as the ASM (SE ASIA), for:
"...30 days service on land in Malaysia between 14 Feb 75 and 31 Dec 89..."
(Department of Defence - Defence Honours and Awards)


If you meet that criteria (and we were the last rotation eligible) then you're in like Flynn.

He concluded his message:

Not bad for three months worth of drinking hey?!:D

Happy hunting.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
AD, I'm not going to reply to most of this because predictably you had done your best to misinterpret, trivialise and twist what I said.
Most of what you said is trivial enough on it's own and demonstrates a near complete lack of understanding of military matters.

However, I am grateful for you explaining to me that neither the Army nor the RAAF any longer have the Second World War capability to conduct an airborne rocket firing at ground targets without deploying an advanced fighter-bomber like the F/A-18.
Did you not read what I wrote earlier? RAAF doesn't maintain an air-launched unguided rocket capability.

They don't maintain WW2 Lancasters either. Do you get upset about that?

Army is in the process of introducing it's Tiger and it's integral un-guided rocket system into service. I'm sure they are as anxious as you to get it in-service, however unlike you, they are responsible for ensuring that pilots, Battle Captains and it's soldiers lives and health is preserved as much as possible.

I'm sure YOU wouldn't mind a helo launched rocket firing it's back blast into the side of YOUR helicopter, but others feel differently...

I had not read that report on the Tiger.
Do you homework before making such definite pronouncements then. It's open sourced stuff. You don't need anything besides an internet connection to find out.

For crying out loud, does ANYTHING we ever buy work as required on delivery?
Not the stuff made in Australia...

Talking here is a waste of my time...
And everyone elses...
 

swerve

Super Moderator
A Pakistani Muslim that went to an Australian Uni! Do you not know anything about the Muslim World?
Probably more than you, from what he writes.

BTW, I have Muslim relatives. Yes, that's right, Muslims in my ( mainly white, English) family. The Muslim parents of my (half Indian, half English) cousins wife decided they loved their daughter more than they hated her marrying an infidel, & accepted it. There are also Hindus & Buddhists (Japanese). At the last family funeral I went to, a couple of old guys flew in from India (first visit to the UK) to see off their brother, & I saw Muslims & Hindus tearfully embracing, & singing hymns at an Anglican service.

I know of a couple of Kurdish blokes with European wives. The families have welcomed them, no nonsense about covering their heads or the like. Last I heard, both were very happy. One was on a visit home - unaccompanied, husband being busy in Istanbul.

I had a Muslim (Pakistani) girlfriend when I was a student. Parents quietly disapproved, but wouldn't interfere. Her choice to make, even if they wished she'd change it.

I've sat in beer halls full of Muslim men. I've had teenage Muslim girls, in Muslim countries, politely ask if I mind them talking to me, while their (non-English-speaking) parents smile benignly at us, the daughter occasionally breaking into Arabic to tell them something, or translating a question from them to me.

I've had a Muslim woman breastfeed her baby at the next restaurant table to me, without any other customer turning a hair.

I've had the imam of a mosque I was visiting, in another Muslim country, ask me if I was Christian, & when I told him I was agnostic, he expressed polite regret, & hoped that I would find faith - Christianity would be fine, as far as he was concerned. The main thing was to accept God.

That's the Muslim world, much more than the Taliban is.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Iran is a state with a military budget in the billions. You think Taliban has that kind of funding? What is your opinion based on?

There were two SpetzNaz brigades in Afghanistan by 1986. What do you think they were doing there? Neither the book (a translation of articles) nor the short study deal with the work of SpetzNaz which included a "muslim battalion" composed entirely from Central Asian service personnel that operated 'out of uniform'.
My point was that these operations were a minority of Soviet involvement, and by no means the strategy chosen for winning. They were a sideshow. If you want to look at Soviet lessons from Afghan, then the literature I provided is far more significant then your vague statement on SpetzNaz ops.

Its a forum Feanor, and not a course final test. To clearly see the change in generations, a greater oversimplification helps. This clarity breaks down in the 80s.
Flight control surfaces? There was so much aerodynamic experimentations in the 60s and early 70s that calling the 3rd generation a mutation is probably more appropriate than evolution.
I'm not sure what the difference between mutation and evolution is in this case. My point is that your attempt to make it look like the various experimentations of the 4th gen incremental upgrades and variant modifications are not unique to the 4th generation nor do they make the 4th generation less distinct then the previous ones.

I disagree. The research into "stealth" begun as a means of penetrating Soviet radar networks. Controlling the IR signature and emissions came later, but its academic. After the third generation aircraft sophistication became incremental. Compete type replacement gave way to upgrades.
Except that the teen series fighters were a complete type replacement of the third generation. They were retained in service for a long time. But during that whole time they were a distinct generation compared to F4s F-5s etc. And now the 5th generation is another complete type replacement.

If anything, the 4th generation is the "upgrade generation", and the 5th generation is the first aircraft built after this generation.
Be more specific.

When was that?
ODS, OIF, Yugoslavia.... take your pick.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A mate of mine sent me a message last year after our 20 year RMC reunion:

I'm guessing that you're unaware that you're eligible for the Australian Service Medal - South East Asia; otherwise known as the ASM (SE ASIA), for:
"...30 days service on land in Malaysia between 14 Feb 75 and 31 Dec 89..."
(Department of Defence - Defence Honours and Awards)


If you meet that criteria (and we were the last rotation eligible) then you're in like Flynn.

He concluded his message:

Not bad for three months worth of drinking hey?!:D

Happy hunting.
OMG....couldnt look a viet vet in the eye wearing an ASM for that....wont apply for it, the only action i saw there was lots of drinking, maybe a conflict over the exchange rate of the ringet on stolly week....but thanks for the info marc ;)
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
Probably more than you, from what he writes.

BTW, I have Muslim relatives. Yes, that's right, Muslims in my ( mainly white, English) family. The Muslim parents of my (half Indian, half English) cousins wife decided they loved their daughter more than they hated her marrying an infidel, & accepted it. There are also Hindus & Buddhists (Japanese). At the last family funeral I went to, a couple of old guys flew in from India (first visit to the UK) to see off their brother, & I saw Muslims & Hindus tearfully embracing, & singing hymns at an Anglican service.

I know of a couple of Kurdish blokes with European wives. The families have welcomed them, no nonsense about covering their heads or the like. Last I heard, both were very happy. One was on a visit home - unaccompanied, husband being busy in Istanbul.

I had a Muslim (Pakistani) girlfriend when I was a student. Parents quietly disapproved, but wouldn't interfere. Her choice to make, even if they wished she'd change it.

I've sat in beer halls full of Muslim men. I've had teenage Muslim girls, in Muslim countries, politely ask if I mind them talking to me, while their (non-English-speaking) parents smile benignly at us, the daughter occasionally breaking into Arabic to tell them something, or translating a question from them to me.

I've had a Muslim woman breastfeed her baby at the next restaurant table to me, without any other customer turning a hair.

I've had the imam of a mosque I was visiting, in another Muslim country, ask me if I was Christian, & when I told him I was agnostic, he expressed polite regret, & hoped that I would find faith - Christianity would be fine, as far as he was concerned. The main thing was to accept God.

That's the Muslim world, much more than the Taliban is.
Good, so you probably won't mind living in Karachi?
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
Most of what you said is trivial enough on it's own and demonstrates a near complete lack of understanding of military matters.

Did you not read what I wrote earlier? RAAF doesn't maintain an air-launched unguided rocket capability.

They don't maintain WW2 Lancasters either. Do you get upset about that?

Army is in the process of introducing it's Tiger and it's integral un-guided rocket system into service. I'm sure they are as anxious as you to get it in-service, however unlike you, they are responsible for ensuring that pilots, Battle Captains and it's soldiers lives and health is preserved as much as possible.

I'm sure YOU wouldn't mind a helo launched rocket firing it's back blast into the side of YOUR helicopter, but others feel differently...

Do you homework before making such definite pronouncements then. It's open sourced stuff. You don't need anything besides an internet connection to find out.

Not the stuff made in Australia...

And everyone elses...
From where I sit you are just offensive and therefore unpleasant to communicate with.
 

Mick73

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
This thread as turned into a pissing comp...time for it to be shut down and for moderators to lead by example...attitudes displayed by some of you are piss weak. 3-4 of you are ganging up on one person...and if some of you make a living in the defence world, no wonder this country is not ready for war.
 

the road runner

Active Member
I found a write-up here:
Rudd plans massive expansion in naval power - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The quote is "1,100 personnel carriers"... Perhaps I'm a cynic, but I'm a little worried that it may be 700 Bushmasters + 400 M113AS3/4
Hope to be proven wrong. ;)
Im starting to think the same,after i read your post:(
Bloody journos always getting it wrong.Todays Sydney Morning Herald, had a typo, saying we getting 46 Tiger helecopters.I nearly choked on my wheat bix,till i put 2 and 2 together and realised they are the 46 MRH-90.

I read an article in Todays Weekend Australia.(link below)By Daniel Cotterill

Challenge resides in defence spend | The Australian

Quotes directed at Australian industry,like

........"improve its track record on delivering equipment that works as intended on time and on budget"

........."Government has clearley signalled a willingness to buy off the shelf equipment from overseas if Industry fails to toe the line"

Translation=OZ Industry.....you dont preform>>>>we buy from Overseas.

Defence Material organisation(DMO) will be run more, on a business model,with DMO able to report direct to Ministers.I think the governemnt wants to be seen more in control of Defence spending.

And why is the WHITE PAPER being released on a Saturday?
Is Kevin 07 is promising us gold and,we will recieve lead?
Im starting to think its more a popularity contest :(
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
Iran is a state with a military budget in the billions. You think Taliban has that kind of funding? What is your opinion based on?
Iran also has a huge military, and national projects to create domestic defence production in almost every major platform/system type. Iran also has a budget for acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran is also trying to rebuild its national infrastructures, improve education and healthcare, and conduct other social programs, albeit by virtually excluding women from economic participation. When the accounting is done, it has far less money left for supporting causes outside its borders than most like to believe. On the other hand Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have far smaller armed forces, and far smaller need for social projects, and therefore have a far larger amount of disposable cash. And, where as in Iran this disposable 'causes' cash must pass the internal political faction approval process, in the patriarchal monarchies of the Gulf money can be transferred at will via the internet :)

My point was that these operations were a minority of Soviet involvement, and by no means the strategy chosen for winning. They were a sideshow. If you want to look at Soviet lessons from Afghan, then the literature I provided is far more significant then your vague statement on SpetzNaz ops.
No, I got your point, and its a valid one, but those two sources do not represent the totality of the whole. Grau simply translated a bunch of articles form Soviet, and later, Russian military publications. They represent operational use of infantry, but do not represent the full potential of 40th Army's offensive capabilities. These are virtually unknown in the West.
They were not a sideshow as you put it. Most of the current offensive operations are performed by NATO special forces, and so far as Australian troops are concerned this is the totality of our contribution.
Lets not forget too that the Soviet war was a very different one. They were not up against just 10,000 widely dispersed company- or platoon-sized groups, but on occasion groups of up to 3-4,000 fighters, that even used armoured vehicles on occasion.
The SpetzNaz fulfilled two primary roles: elimination of leadership, and elimination of the flow of arms into Afghanistan. These are in fact the same roles they were trained for in a conventional conflict. They succeeded with the former fairly well despite being unable to operate deep in Pakistan. The second task proved harder because of reconnaissance assets that were not there at the time, and the supply of anti-aircraft weapons by the CIA that prevented using air reconnaissance effectively. Eventually offensive use of just two brigades were not enough to close the Pakistani border, as the NATO forces have found out.

I'm not sure what the difference between mutation and evolution is in this case. My point is that your attempt to make it look like the various experimentations of the 4th gen incremental upgrades and variant modifications are not unique to the 4th generation nor do they make the 4th generation less distinct then the previous ones.
No, there is a 4th generation, I agree, but it is only by the virtue of the 20 years of upgrading the 3rd generation aircraft. Consider the Turkish F-4E 2020 Terminator upgrade. I can not imagine what was stuffed into that old airframe by the Israelis, but they were sure not limited on space :)

Except that the teen series fighters were a complete type replacement of the third generation. They were retained in service for a long time. But during that whole time they were a distinct generation compared to F4s F-5s etc. And now the 5th generation is another complete type replacement.
So you are counting generations based on type replacement in the USAF. On the other hand I am counting generations based on clear technological differences that can be broadly applied to aircraft regardless of where they are made. There are parallels elsewhere to the 'generations' arguments. For example not all countries experienced the US 'baby boom' generation, but all countries experienced the economic and social changes brought on by the end of the Second World War.
For the record, a generation in human terms is about 16-26 years depending on age at first child birth in a given society. For technology though the generations are lengthening with time due to improvements in reliability. There were still fighter aircraft flying around in 1994 that were built in 1972, and the death of the third generation was really brought forward by the end of the Cold War.

Be more specific.
Ok, 4th generation in the US conception is the generation of multi-role aircraft that was brought on by the Vietnam War. The ending of the thinking that begun during the Second World War that each specialised form of air combat needed a specialised design, eg. ground attack, fighters, interceptors, bombers, all had their own specific performance criteria, tactics and therefore designs. In the USA the 4th generation is not the 'teens' generation, but the 'hyphenated' generation of strike-fighters, or fighter-bombers, and all fighters were assumed to be capable of high altitude intercepts. The bomb loads were increased so only the maxi-bombers, the B-52s remained in a strategic role, with the F-111s also being designated fighter-bombers, though in reality replacing any medium bomber between the Eagle and the B-52. Te A-10 was unique in a sense because it was really the last of the purpose-designed aircraft as ground attack, adding a specific anti-armour role that had not existed in the USAF or the USAAF, before. And now for all intents and purposes there will only be two types of aircraft left in the USAF, Little Joe (F-35) and Big Joe (F-22) :)

ODS, OIF, Yugoslavia.... take your pick.
No, I meant what air war against someone who put up a fight :)
And Yugoslavia was a NATO campaign, so not really a fair match I thought, but then war is not supposed to be fair....
 

Preceptor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Thread locked to allow a cooling off period for all posters. This is also a reminder to posters the that DefenceTalk Forum is for discussion and debate of ideas and information on defence matters. Therefore, if one is presenting an idea, or especially if declaring something as fact, one needs to be prepared to support and defend the idea and/or assertion. Continuation of an argument while ignoring opposing information is not the way to remain a member in good standing here.
This thread will be kept closed for 72 hours.
-Preceptor
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top