could we rebuild

[splat]

I had an additional thought, specific to the replacement of aircraft. IIRC once the F-35 JSF enters full production, the fighters will come out at the rate of ~20/month assuming all components are available. With that kind of production rate, it would take ~5 months to completely replace the RAAF fighters if something happened. Now, if the US production moved back to a wartime footing (a la 24hr ops on the production line) then the time frame could possibly be cut down to ~2 months, again assuming all components are available as/when needed.

As mentioned before, in many cases the reason some of the current systems take so long to manufacture has to do with the complexity of the systems and subsystems.

In terms of Australian production, many of the very complicated items (like tanks, fighters and transport aircraft) are purchased. This is done largely because Australia, while a technologically developed nation, lacks the critical mass needed to sustain some of the particular industries required.

From what I recall of prior discussions on other threads, from a business standpoint, something like 4000 units would need to be ordered to reach a break even point for MBT production. Therefore there are only a handful of countries which are able to really support the kinds of industries needed to keep such production lines open, or have synergies with other industries to allow a transition back and forth.

Looking at current MBT production, even US & UK designs like the M1 Abrams and Challenger II are no longer in production (at least domestically, the Abrams might be under license production in Egypt...)

Given enough time and a critical need, I do think Australia could create an indigenious design like was done in World War II, with the AC Sentinel Mk I-IV tanks. It is worth remembering though that the Australians only managed to product ~65 before production ceased because a logistical pipeline bringing war material from US factories was in place.

Last thing to consider from an industrial output perspective. In the current peacetime procurement planning, it appears to take approximately 14(+/-) years from initial definition of a service need to entry into service of the first unit. In this, I am talking about 'big ticket' items like new aircraft, ships, etc. The C-17 Globemaster and F/A-18F SH purchases are in some respects irregular in that they were fast-tracked, as well as import purchases with minor modification from current production runs. If it were to be changed to wartime planning, I would expect that some of the numbers would shrink, as money/costs became less important, and as some policies and practices on bidding, etc were suspended due to time constraints. However, it would still take time to design or purchase a design, and the build or modify production facilities and establish a workforce, nevermind actually commencing production.

As for Splat,

What this scenario overlooks, quite deliberately, is what the current Australian defences are, and who/how they can overcome them. It can it done? Yes. Is it something that would be easy, or that many nations could do? No. And the only way to ensure that Australia could, even using nuclear weaponry, strike at everyone who could would be to establish intercontinental delivery systems. My personal preference would be for Australia to develop sufficient means so that a potential attacker would reconsider launching an attack, as opposed to being concerned about a counterstrike.

-Cheer

im thinking that if a nation was to attack australian targets in the way as put forward by this forums scenario,it would be by a nation that would have to be militarily a few times more powerfull conventionally.more than a decisive advantage with fighter aircraft and cruise missiles,because you would want to make sure that if the initial attack was'nt effective enough you would want to go in again and be able to defeat any remaining opposition.unless the initial attack was carried out by special forces,the if required follow up attack would be more able to absorb some losses from any remaining air opposition.but could a power with a significant advatage over australian forces be able to orchestrate such an attack using spec ops in the first place? i dont see how australian industry even if it had the capability to produce a fair ammount of armaments could do so unmolested if we were all by ourselves and the us and others were tied up elsewhere.even if australian industry was to respond without further attack i wouldnt think a significant all arms industry would be possible,ecspecially not in the short term.how much do we manafacture and produce as it is now?...in regards to nuclear weapons,both tactical and strategic,i would reckon the development and construction/operating costs would be a lot cheaper than the hundreds of billions a legitimate conventional force would require to aquire/man and operate.i dont want that sort of economic strain on australia.

 

[Todjaeger]

im thinking that if a nation was to attack australian targets in the way as put forward by this forums scenario,it would be by a nation that would have to be militarily a few times more powerfull conventionally.more than a decisive advantage with fighter aircraft and cruise missiles,because you would want to make sure that if the initial attack was'nt effective enough you would want to go in again and be able to defeat any remaining opposition.unless the initial attack was carried out by special forces,the if required follow up attack would be more able to absorb some losses from any remaining air opposition.but could a power with a significant advatage over australian forces be able to orchestrate such an attack using spec ops in the first place? i dont see how australian industry even if it had the capability to produce a fair ammount of armaments could do so unmolested if we were all by ourselves and the us and others were tied up elsewhere.even if australian industry was to respond without further attack i wouldnt think a significant all arms industry would be possible,ecspecially not in the short term.how much do we manafacture and produce as it is now?...in regards to nuclear weapons,both tactical and strategic,i would reckon the development and construction/operating costs would be a lot cheaper than the hundreds of billions a legitimate conventional force would require to aquire/man and operate.i dont want that sort of economic strain on australia.

Part of this is dependent on the how & why of the attack by Red Force. Using the example T68 gave of the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor in 1941... That attack was intended to deal a crippling or fatal blow to the US Navy's Pacific Fleet, and therefore the ability of the US to project or reinforce power in the Pacific basin. Given the distances involved, and the resources which would be gained, IMO the Japanese military of the time had no intention of carrying out an invasion of the North American mainland. The desire instead was to neutralize the ability of the US to respond to Japanese actions in China, SE Asia and the South Pacific/Pacific islands, possibly even Australia and NZ, depending on how things went. Had the attack been a total success (IIRC in addition to the 3 carriers, there were 8 cruisers and ~17 destroyers out at sea...) and the entire Pacific Fleet disabled or destroyed, then it is possible that Japan may have had sufficient time to seize what it wanted and consolidate its hold sufficiently so that the Allies would have sought an armistice.

With that in mind, it is possible that an attack such as indicated in the first post would be made with the intent of neutralizing Australia and any Australian response to an event elsewhere, presumably within the region. Under these circumstances, then it is possible that Australia might be given some breathing room as it were, to rebuild.

With that in mind, I feel that Australia would be able to reproduce warships, and non-MBT ground systems. Some of the specialty production (like PGM artillery and missiles) could be more problematic. Australia currently is able to produce warships and a number of the needed subsystems like radar, main gun and FCS IIRC. Other civilian systems and facilities could be adapted. But again, it would require and take time.

As for atomic or nuclear weaponry... That could certainly be developed. I feel that given Australian research facilities and available computer modelling, as well as natural resources, a working device could likely be constructed in short order. Unfortunately such a device would likely be of short range, or require an aircraft or ship/sub delivery to Ground Zero. This would likely mean that it would be detonated within Australia proper, or that Australian personnel would be put at (likely extreme) risk to get the device to where it could be usefully deployed against Red Force.

-Cheers

 

[MarcH]

Well, most defense equipment is more or less imported. Therefore I see no problem in replacing lost equipment.
Boeing probably wouldn't mind selling some additional Hornets, leasing parts of the mothballed British fleet shouldn't be a problem, till replacements are build.

 

[Todjaeger]

Well, most defense equipment is more or less imported. Therefore I see no problem in replacing lost equipment.
Boeing probably wouldn't mind selling some additional Hornets, leasing parts of the mothballed British fleet shouldn't be a problem, till replacements are build.

Many parts are imported. However, there are fewer whole systems which are imported. A few things worth noting about importing defence equipment though.

1. The equipment needed has to be available to import it.
2. A country needs to be willing & able to export it.
3. The receiving country (Australia in this case) needs to be able to receive in a timely enough fashion to make use of it.

For these points, I will use Boeing & the Hornet fleet as an example... If the RAAF lost the entire Hornet fleet and needed it replaced immediately... It is out of production. Unless the USN/USMC or one of the other Hornet users were willing to sell their used aircraft to Australia, the RAAF would need to immediately select a different aircraft is currently in production. If the RAAF did decide to with the Superhornet, since it bears the greatest similarities to the Hornet and some are already on order for the RAAF, there would still be delays to their entering service. Boeing, I am sure would be happy to accept the order, but the US would need to be willing to make the sale. It is understood in international law that providing war materials to one side in a conflict is a warlike act, if the US was not already involved, selling Australia fighters would make them involved. OTOH, it is possible that the US would already be involved in something that could be either directly or indirectly connected to the attack upon Australia (again, it would depend on who Red Force is, and why they launched an attack...) and need the aircraft production for themselves. At present, Boeing appears to be able produce 48 F/A-18 Super Hornets annually. This assumes that the US was willing to forgo their delivery slots so that Australia could rebuild the RAAF faster, it would still be over a year and a half before the needed number of fighters were built. Nevermind testing, any pilot and/or groundcrew training and transition, etc. There could still easily be a 2+ year delay in the RAAF receiving their replacement aircraft, from the time the order is placed.

-Cheers

 

[splat]

Part of this is dependent on the how & why of the attack by Red Force. Using the example T68 gave of the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor in 1941... That attack was intended to deal a crippling or fatal blow to the US Navy's Pacific Fleet, and therefore the ability of the US to project or reinforce power in the Pacific basin. Given the distances involved, and the resources which would be gained, IMO the Japanese military of the time had no intention of carrying out an invasion of the North American mainland. The desire instead was to neutralize the ability of the US to respond to Japanese actions in China, SE Asia and the South Pacific/Pacific islands, possibly even Australia and NZ, depending on how things went. Had the attack been a total success (IIRC in addition to the 3 carriers, there were 8 cruisers and ~17 destroyers out at sea...) and the entire Pacific Fleet disabled or destroyed, then it is possible that Japan may have had sufficient time to seize what it wanted and consolidate its hold sufficiently so that the Allies would have sought an armistice.

With that in mind, it is possible that an attack such as indicated in the first post would be made with the intent of neutralizing Australia and any Australian response to an event elsewhere, presumably within the region. Under these circumstances, then it is possible that Australia might be given some breathing room as it were, to rebuild.

With that in mind, I feel that Australia would be able to reproduce warships, and non-MBT ground systems. Some of the specialty production (like PGM artillery and missiles) could be more problematic. Australia currently is able to produce warships and a number of the needed subsystems like radar, main gun and FCS IIRC. Other civilian systems and facilities could be adapted. But again, it would require and take time.

As for atomic or nuclear weaponry... That could certainly be developed. I feel that given Australian research facilities and available computer modelling, as well as natural resources, a working device could likely be constructed in short order. Unfortunately such a device would likely be of short range, or require an aircraft or ship/sub delivery to Ground Zero. This would likely mean that it would be detonated within Australia proper, or that Australian personnel would be put at (likely extreme) risk to get the device to where it could be usefully deployed against Red Force.

-Cheers

dont know why to deliver a warhead would be so risky to the troops,other than exlpoding it at not to great a distance from them.

 

[splat]

Well, most defense equipment is more or less imported. Therefore I see no problem in replacing lost equipment.
Boeing probably wouldn't mind selling some additional Hornets, leasing parts of the mothballed British fleet shouldn't be a problem, till replacements are build.

what mothballed fleet?

 

[splat]

In people’s opinion could Australia recover from a preemptive surprise attack on military targets on the east coast in a similar situation as Pearl Harbour 1941?

In this scenario it is confined to military installations in Sydney, Newcastle

Fleet base east is severely damaged, east coast fleet were tied up with the majority sunk within the harbour, Holdsworthy/Morebank destroyed, RAAF Richmond c130 Hercules fleet destroyed, RAAF Williamstown severely damaged hornet fleet destroyed , RAN armaments depot Orchard hills destroyed and mymbat joint armaments depot destroyed in the hunter valley, small arms factory Lithgow damaged.

In this scenario i am not looking at how a surface fleet could get of the east coast undetected, but how would we cope from a peacetime economy/workforce to full wartime footing.


Does Australia have the infrastructure to rebuild enough shipping in a short time frame to conduct war?
Are we capable of building legacy hornet or super hornets in Australia?
Could we build small arms / artillery?
The list is end list

I am looking at this from a rebuilding phase and from a nation on full war footing and our ability to make war.

Your thoughts on how and what we could achieve in reality

are we capable of building legacy hornets or sh in country?..
yes thats what i wpould like to know.does it involve dismantlig the aircraft and taking measurements from each part?and from there is it just a matter of machining the parts?i know we assembled the hornets back in the 80's from knocked down kits,so were all the parts imported or were some manafactured here?and the workforce.would the current builders or assemblers of hawk127 and tiger be the people used for a new hornet build programme?

 

[Todjaeger]

dont know why to deliver a warhead would be so risky to the troops,other than exlpoding it at not to great a distance from them.

As I mentioned before, I am confident that Australia could indeed develop an atomic or nuclear bomb if it needed to. If, however, a bomb were developed under the circumstances surrounding the given scenario, the program would very much be a 'crash course' in nuclear weaponry. As such, the warhead would likely be rather large, clumsy and 'dirty', at least if compared to those fielded by the US, UK, France and Russia. I would not expect the first effort would be quite as bad Fatman or Little Boy from the Manhattan Project, more is known about how to split an atom now. By the same token, I do not think Australia could make a cradle to grave development of a nuclear warhead that could successfully delivered via a cruise or ballistic missile. Even a 155mm artillery shell or torpedoe with a nuclear warhead might exceed Australia's capabilities for a first effort.

This would then likely confine the available delivery systems to ground transportation or possibly an air dropped warhead (a bomb).

In order to successfully deliver a nuclear warhead, it would need to be used on a significant target, either tactically or preferably strategically. This would be something like a large troop concentration (brigade+), a key site like a large depot or bridgehead, or if at sea against an enemy taskforce.
This areas would generally be either contested or largely controlled by Red Force.

For a ground-based attack, this could likely be done fairly easily, the Australian troops just staying put and allowing Red Force to 'rollover' them. Then, at the appropriate time and in the correct place, detonate the device. Unfortunately, this would almost certainly be occuring within Australia proper. Therefore, Australians would likely also be caught in the blast to some degree, and the ground force would likely need to remain close enough to the device to ensure that Red Force does not detect and seize or disable the device. I would not expect the Australians to be able to get far enough away from Ground Zero to survive

In order to deliver an air-dropped (or airburst) device, one would need to either be secreted onto an aircraft flying into the appropriate area, or the Australians would need to be able to get an aircraft they can fly into the appropriate area, likely penetrating an enemy air defence cordon. Given that the expectation is that the Australian fast jet fleet of Hornets is expected to have been destroyed, this might not be an option unless the Australians were somehow able to capture or seize an enemy aircraft to use.

As this should indicate, even if a bomb were available, deliverying it to a target where it would be useful would be difficult given what overall state the ADF would be in.

-Cheers

 

[splat]

As I mentioned before, I am confident that Australia could indeed develop an atomic or nuclear bomb if it needed to. If, however, a bomb were developed under the circumstances surrounding the given scenario, the program would very much be a 'crash course' in nuclear weaponry. As such, the warhead would likely be rather large, clumsy and 'dirty', at least if compared to those fielded by the US, UK, France and Russia. I would not expect the first effort would be quite as bad Fatman or Little Boy from the Manhattan Project, more is known about how to split an atom now. By the same token, I do not think Australia could make a cradle to grave development of a nuclear warhead that could successfully delivered via a cruise or ballistic missile. Even a 155mm artillery shell or torpedoe with a nuclear warhead might exceed Australia's capabilities for a first effort.

This would then likely confine the available delivery systems to ground transportation or possibly an air dropped warhead (a bomb).

In order to successfully deliver a nuclear warhead, it would need to be used on a significant target, either tactically or preferably strategically. This would be something like a large troop concentration (brigade+), a key site like a large depot or bridgehead, or if at sea against an enemy taskforce.
This areas would generally be either contested or largely controlled by Red Force.

For a ground-based attack, this could likely be done fairly easily, the Australian troops just staying put and allowing Red Force to 'rollover' them. Then, at the appropriate time and in the correct place, detonate the device. Unfortunately, this would almost certainly be occuring within Australia proper. Therefore, Australians would likely also be caught in the blast to some degree, and the ground force would likely need to remain close enough to the device to ensure that Red Force does not detect and seize or disable the device. I would not expect the Australians to be able to get far enough away from Ground Zero to survive

In order to deliver an air-dropped (or airburst) device, one would need to either be secreted onto an aircraft flying into the appropriate area, or the Australians would need to be able to get an aircraft they can fly into the appropriate area, likely penetrating an enemy air defence cordon. Given that the expectation is that the Australian fast jet fleet of Hornets is expected to have been destroyed, this might not be an option unless the Australians were somehow able to capture or seize an enemy aircraft to use.

As this should indicate, even if a bomb were available, deliverying it to a target where it would be useful would be difficult given what overall state the ADF would be in.

-Cheers

im thinking a bomb the size of the 2000lber or bigger with winglets attached as in jdam to allow a standoff launch by the remaining tyndal,darwin based hornets or amberely based f111's...dont know how many kioltonnes each bomb would be but multiple bombs for the same target if necesary....plus if really necesary we could evacuate northern australia from any fallout.theres not a lotta people up there.couple hundred thousand.

 

[jams002]

what are we rebuild??





___________________
Great thing to know about busby seo test.

 

[willur]

interesting thought

technically there is very few whole systems built in house in a short span of time ie: hornet, ships, subs and tanks
if we lost all the hornets we could source the graveyard in the states have them ready within 2 weeks maybe less, tank regiment i would say 7 days complete and won't elaborate on that, ships 3-6mths for stuff out of mothballs and new build in 10 mths any of the(lower cap) frigates or subs (little longer operational sea trials), heavy carriage would be sourced from merchant marine. all up the rebuild i believe would take a total of 12 mths for full war fighting strength plus and/or 3-4mths full defence cap.
and its not that we could build hornets here in that time i dont know if we have a engine manufactor on this island?
although off topic i think the max a f111 can carry is as quoted in WIKI

The B61 is a variable-yield bomb designed for carriage by high-speed aircraft. It has a streamlined casing capable of withstanding supersonic flight speeds. The weapon is 11 ft 8 in (3.58 m) long, with a diameter of about 13 in (33 cm). Basic weight is about 700 lb (320 kg), although the weights of individual weapons may vary depending on version and fuse/retardation configuration.
and a how to video of making a b61 in case your interested
[ame="http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=RlH7OuWiPb4"]YouTube - Declassified U.S. Nuclear Test Film #72[/ame]