Australia is not ready for war

[Wooki]

But I wasn't talking about a tank....at least not a heavy tank like the Abrams

And there are a lot of people capable of contributing to such a project in Australia, so no imported talent would be required...nor do they have to quit their jobs (note, we are currently a net exporter of talent)

And given the design will be for a production of something the Army really wants rather than trying to find best match on the open market, there wouldn't be an RFP...

And the engine manufacturer can build engines that are also used in commercial vehicles like...trucks. There are trucks in Australia....about 400,000 of them, and about 30,000 of them are rated for 40t+, which is good enough for an AFV family suitable for the Army. How does a production facility for 30,000 engines sound? Low rate production also, initially. It can be linked to a national environmental standard requirement, so over time, say a decade, all commercial trucks would need to change their engine...to a domestic one Australians love to tinker with their engines, and none more than the truckies

And because it would be a low rate production, it will mean that by the time production is ended, its time to start first series of rebuilds/upgrades, just like the Sydney Harbour Bridge painting...so there is job security.

I hope that explains some of the minutiae that make your counter-proposal unlikely. It's always those damned details, eh? Get you every time.

You're a troll as far as I can figure out. None of your arguments have any merit despite people patiently pointing out the obvious to you. Although Australia could be unkindly and loosely termed a socialist democracy, what you are suggesting is simply not possible without a massive government intervention and I don't think even Australia would go down that path.

Happy fantasizing.

cheers

w

 

[FutureTank]

Not so. The Taliban represent an extremist minority within Islam, & are heavily influenced by Pushtun tribal tradition. Ask the average Turkish Muslim what he or she thinks of the Taliban. Ask the Islamic schools of Qom, the religious centre of Iran. They'll throw up their hands in horror. Even the Iranians find the Taliban attitude to women primitive, & unjustifiable by Islamic teaching.

Yeh, right. That's why they the Islamic World hurried to condemn them after the Taliban took over when the Soviets left.

The average Turkish Muslim is not an average Muslim, and many in the Muslim World will say that Turks are not even Muslims.

Iranians will say that because they are not supporting Taliban, the Saudis are.

Pushtun tribal tradition? At least so far they have not expressed the desire to claim right of return to Israel

The Taliban represented the ideal Islamic state, but the reason no one acknowledged this, is because every other Islamic state wanted to be seen as the model for an Islamic state. However, there is plenty of support for them in the Islamic World, and always will be. In any case, 40 million people can't be changed in a matter of a decade or even two. It takes generations.

The best NATO can do is to focus on getting Bin Ladin and his supporters, and leaving with as much pride intact as possible. Would also be good if they didn't rearm the Afghans.

 

[FutureTank]

You're a troll as far as I can figure out. None of your arguments have any merit despite people patiently pointing out the obvious to you. Although Australia could be unkindly and loosely termed a socialist democracy, what you are suggesting is simply not possible without a massive government intervention and I don't think even Australia would go down that path.

Happy fantasizing.

cheers

w

lol

Socialist democracy as seen from where, the USA? Stick around for the second Obama term

In terms of defence "massive government intervention" is how the ENTIRE Asian region works. That's from Mediterranean all the way to the Russian Far East, and from Siberia to the southern tip of Java. You are telling me I'm fantasizing!
IMHO there is a bit of MGI going on in the USA also

There is not a liberal democracy within a cooee of Australia even in the European (far more socialist) understanding of the word. The rules of the "game" in the region are different, and if Australia does not play by the rules, it will eventually find life very hard.

As for people patiently pointing how things can't be done, I think that's what challenges are made from, negativity of others.
No one said Australia can not build its own defence industrial base. What they said is that there are a few challenges. Like money. But there is money. There is always enough money. Just have to find it and harness it. Mix it with a bit of enthusiasm, and off you go. Lots of people told Bob Clifford he was nutz, and sneered at his lack of education. But guess who builds the fastest ships in the US Navy?

What's your suggestion, that Australia becomes a permanent dependency of the United States and lives off scraps of technology thrown to it for the odd jobs like in Switzerland? Did it ever occur to you I may think that I live in a pretty great country also? Anything can be done here. I have met some amazing people in my life here that can do anything. And, there are models elsewhere. It took American political pressure to stop Israelis making their own fighter. They did make their own tank, their own ICVs, own artillery, and they have what, a quarter of Australia's population, no natural resources by comparison, a third of Australia's GDP.

Australia is not ready for war, but it should be.

 

[swerve]

Building armoured vehicles in a low-rate production scenario does not require either a highly developed general automotive industry, nor a militarised one.

Does this mean you have dropped all your other proposals, & are now advocating only that Australia build AFVs?

Errr - Australia is building AFVs. One type, optimised for Australian conditions - which conveniently suits it for some other places & hence makes it attractive to some foreign armies. I've not seen anyone here argue that such niche capabilities are beyond Australias reach. I certainly haven't. Indeed, I've explicitly stated that they are practical for Australia. What I, & others, have argued is that Australia can't afford the broad spectrum of military industries you originally proposed.

Do let us know whether you're still in favour of your original proposal.

 

[Aussie Digger]

As AD pointed out, it was designed to supplement the M113s for use in Australia, and limited duties in peace-keeping operations. All of a sudden it had become the main type of armoured vehicle operated by the Australian Army. What, the old policy got lost in the Canberra archives?

Again, you are plainly wrong. It is NOT an armoured vehicle, as Army classifies such things, nor is it entirely a B vehicle. It is something else. An armoured B vehicle, if you will.

What it most definitely is not is an armoured fighting vehicle. It is designed to provide protected mobility for infantry and other units.

Prior to the introduction of the Bushmaster. Army used Land Rovers and Unimogs in the roll that Bushmasters are now used.

The mechanised infantry of 1 Brigade don't use it. They use M113's. Currently the A1, with a limited number of A3/4's and as the vehicles roll off the production line, they will increasingly use nothing other than the M113AS3/4's.

As for it's intended purpose, it was originally intended to provide 6 Brigade with protected mobility in DoA operations. 6 Brigade providing the "depth" for Australian Army operations, with 1 Brigade conducting the "higher intensity" ops with a medium combat weight capability, 3 Brigade providing rapid deployment capabilities and 6 Brigade to support these two brigades and provide a rapid deployment capability.

The capability to deploy "rapidly" must be seen in the context of EVERYTHING that a Brigade needs to move and exercises were conducted in the 90's to validate this concept. I remember well 6RAR deploying to Quilpie (1000k's north west of Brisbane) a while ago. With it's vehicles, it was proven to deploy to this location quicker than if RAAF had been involved with it's available airlift capability, plus the deployed elements could support themselves, in the field for 3 days at a time.

As to your domestic production ideas. HA! The largest defence company in Australia has had to have direct Government funding to build sufficient facilities to produce the M113AS3/4 at a reasonable rate.

It is not the case that it can't be done. I'm sure we could build an AFV production capacity. The issue is the cost effectiveness. We don't have an unlimited budget and the benefit you claim would cost our ability to buy to the specification that we need.

M113AS3/4 was chosen to support a particular desire for votes, hence why production was crammed into an unsuitable facility in Victoria and hence why facilities have since had to be opened up in SA. The plan was not achievable in the timeframe required, nor with the capital expenditure invested.

While the project will eventually deliver some capability, an off the shelf purchase of say, Bradley M2A2's, using the same funding would have created significantly GREATER capability for Army, that based on the M1A1 refurbishment and contract signature in 2002 (same year as M113-UP) would have seen the new IFV capability reach IOC in 2006 and FOC by now.

Bushmaster has had some minor success, mostly due to excellent timing, moreso than the sheer brilliance of the capability, but there is a plethora of armoured vehicle projects worldwide.

People rave about Bushmaster but forget it is simply a design from an Irish design house. We didn't do anything special here.

People criticise M113-UP and forget it is largely an off the sheld German upgrade package, designed by FFG. (The issues came about because we were trying to use a running gear package on a stretched and significantly heavier hull).

Trying to build new armoured vehicles from scratch? Ha! We would simply be a small player, spending our limited budget ina futile attempt at reinventing the wheel and unlikely to significantly improve on existing designs.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yes, but that is not what you said. Identified threats are rarely a part of Minister's public speech. You listed capabilities.

That's because a Minister has to be diplomatic in his speech. Defence Capability Plan priorities are matched closely against the capabilities that "threat countries" can or are likely to be able to deploy in the near future.

I wasn't aware that regular Army battalions are inducting school leavers. This is supposed to be a plus in the ADF capability for conducting a war?

What? Who said they were? I said "Infantry IET courses". If you don't know what IET stands for, I think you're time should be better spent elsewhere, because it would be patently obvious you have not a clue...

You always assume to know what I don't know. The reality is though that the vast majority of armoured vehicles that will be used in future by the Infantry Corps of the ADF will be the Bushmasters.

Rubbish.

1. Bushmaster is not issued to the infantry Corps at ALL, except in 6 and 8/9RAR. 1,2,3,4,5 and 7 RAR will NOT have the vehicle and neither will any Reserve infantry unit.

Yes, and? I don't know how the 81x M113AS3/4's are to be used (maybe delivered in the Bulldog-type upgrade?), but nothing had changed in therms of the "motorised brigade" concept since the Bushmaster is a truck with minimal armour by infantry combat vehicle standards. Its better than nothing, but its not something to go to a real war in.

I'm starting to agree with Wooki. One minute you're telling us that Afghanistan is a "real war" and the next you say the Bushmaster is not something to go to a real war in.

Make your mind up troll or get lost.

Didn't say ADF operated M113s as designed. I'm just saying that that is what the design philosophy was. Its about time the infantry had a vehicle it didn't have to adopt its doctrine to.

This is getting amusing. So if we were to choose a different vehicle with different capabilities, how is infantry going to be able to AVOID changing it's doctrine?

I think we both know that the M113 should have been replaced in the 1990s. now we are getting 81 more of the "interim" vehicles until when? 2015-20?
For a Ministry that is always talking about the future, we sure are short of capabilities that would have been apparent in the last budget.

I agree, but it wasn't.

Next!

The only problem is that amphibious insertion is the only method available to the ADF where there are not commercial port facilities available.

Er, except for those big things with large wingspans...

In a war situation these facilities are likely to be protected by the opponent, and how many are there in the region? This is besides the very predictable point of arrival that puts the TF at risk en-route. And yet the ADF has never had this capability, and INTERFET deployment represents the entire extent of such capabilities, and that only with the offloading area being secured by previously air delivered 3RAR troops.

Rubbish. Neither HMAS Kanimbla or Manoora were in-service when Interfet landed in Timor.

Nor were C-17's.

No, I allowed two vessels deployed on either coast.
"will have"...

ESSM - do have.

SM-2 - do have the missiles...

No, but they are not fired from vehicles that are limited to roads in a combined arms force.

I happen to know that Land Rovers are not confined to roads, I think I read somewhere that they do in fact have 4x4 capability...

Interim....thats like M113AS3/4s....
Remember the last Leopard 1 interim upgrade and how long it took to get Abrams after it?

Yep. The upgrade was cancelled in 2004 because Abrams was ordered to replace it...

Abrams were delivered in 2006 and IOC reached in 2007.

If it comes to using AD, it is likely going to be something other than "LIC" environment, so either the ADF will be requiring excellent mobility, or the enemy forces. In either case I would not want supporting AD on Perentie.

What are these mobile SAM firing platforms that can fire guided SAM's whilst actually moving?

The USA doesn't have one to the best of my knowledge.

The majority of SAM systems on the planet are handheld and the major systems require TEL's (transport erector launchers - Patriot, S-300 etc).

Btw I just checked a few SAM systems.

The USA uses:

1. Avenger.

2. SL-AMRAAM.

3. Patriot

4. THAAD.

Guess what the predominant feature of the vehicles on ALL these systems is?


What does that tell you about the relative importance of the vehicles?

Amen. It seems to me that at least the 1st Brigade should be composed of vehicles with same protection and mobility capabilities across combat and combat support arms and services. This to me means at least a Troop of tracked self propelled and armoured AD platforms.

Again, rubbish. Even the Israeli's don't subscribe to that and they face a FAR higher threat level than we do.

You cannot even imagine the cost of trying to fit out M1A1 levels of protection on 600 plus vehicles, can you?

The suggestion is to use 120mm mortars in the reserve brigades in place of the artillery units. These are judged to be more deployable, and require fewer personnel as there is a considerable shortage in gunners across the Army.

No-one in ADF has made this suggestion.

What has happened is that for the purpose of training efficiencies, 81mm mortars have been introduced into reserve artillery units. A gunner can be trained to use an artillery piece in a matter of a few weeks. What is important is the firing procedures, CP procedures and experience in firing fire support missions, not the particular piece which is used for low priority (in terms of deployment readiness) units.

Army experience has been that with existing levels of funding and access to training facilities, courses etc, concentrating on the core skills for these soldiers provides greater outcomes than attempting to "copy" the skills maintained by regular units on the more complex (both technically and in their employment) platforms.

The experience is the same in Armoured Corps. Obsolete M113AS1's, which aren't funded for replacement in Ares units anyway, have made way for Recon/Surveillance variants of Land Rovers.

The rationale being, that employing less sophisticated platforms allows the units to focus on individual and collective training activities, rather than on maintenance of the more complex equipment, much of which is obsolete anyway (M113AS1's and M2A2 105mm guns would be GREAT in a modern battle).

With Ares moving to an individual and sub-unit reinforcement basis, rather than a "base for expansion" basis, it is allowing Ares soldiers to obtain higher qualifications in their core skills, allowing greater opportunities to reinforce regular units deploying on operations, rather than continuing to provide no actual operational capability, but maintaining a charade of having "war time" equipment.

The answer of course is more money. But it isn't available and if it were, there are more important priorities for the deployed and regular force to fill than rounding out non-deployable Ares units.

AD, we are at war. It has been years. You think there should be some urgency imparted into the training and acceptance process?

Not really. How many soldiers have been killed due to a lack of offensive fire support on our operations?

How many mission failures have we had, for the same reason?

I said 8 pilots and support crews, so at least two helicopters can be operated during the hours of darkness in support of ADF personnel in Afghanistan.

ADF personnel are already supported by AH-64 Apache helos and more than 2... Our own would be nice of course, but is it truly essential to achieve our mission?

Seems to me our mission is already being substantially achieved, notwithstanding that we could and should do a whole lot more.

I don't care what France does with their helicopters.

What they do, IS directly relevant to us. An operational capability on a different (older) version of the helicopter in French service was reached yesterday. The initial capability. Not full capability.

Our version has NOT even reached this. As a particular instance of why we cannot deploy our helicopters, if you'd bother to do your research, you'd know that the 68mm rocket system we have bought with our helicopters, is still experiencing significant issues in relation to their backblast and the effect on the airframe from such.

Issues that require an engineering change to our helos.

Another issue is that the "operational" software load for our aircraft has not yet been completely developed. Whilst significant progress has been made, all the sensor and flight data, weapon and EW counter-measures systems need to be tested with each software load. Things are improving, but they aren't ready yet.

Army testified about this, in front of the Senate just a couple of weeks ago. It is these sorts of teething problems that mean our helos can't reach IOC and thus can't yet be deployed.

Does it mean the helos are no good and should be replaced? Nope, just that issues exist that have to be worked through.

And this is the point I have been making all along. The capability to go to war goes beyond having a loaded weapon. We can't actually use the weapons we bought because of external factors. This is not satisfactory.

That is reality. Go an order a new car. You don't always get it the same day you order it.

Go and build a new tank. The weapon systems needs to be fired in a large number of scenarios to verify it meets your requirements. Armour needs to be tested, mobility needs to be tested. Problems need to be addressed through engineering solutions.

Is that satisfactory? It is real life...

Maybe it should maintain that rocket 'capability'

Maybe it should operate a HARM anti-radiation missile capability. Maybe it should operate a tactical recon pod capability.

There are any number of capabilities RAAF could have. Unlike you, RAAF like the rest of ADF have to make a choice between priorities.

Where is the money coming from?

I'm fairly confident that a targeting pod can be used on a Hawk.

Really? Which one? RAAF currently operates 2 types and has another one on order.

The AN/AAS-38 Nitehawk targetting pod and the Litening AT targetting pod. The ATFLIR pod is on order.

Which of these has been integrated onto the Mk 127 Hawk?
Alternatively the pilots can learn how to fire unguided rockets with some precision Its one of those combat pilot skill sets thingy....

Know a bit about it do you? What procedures would you put in place to ensure these unguided rockets didn't cause a blue on blue?

Can you please explain the differences in minimum safe ranges between 2.75 inch rockets and precision guided 500lbs and larger bombs and how these apply to the fire support requirements for ground forces in Afghanistan?

No? Well perhaps you could try and find out some of these things before telling all what should and should not be done.

What, the RAAF requests the Army personnel to stand back a few kilometres because they are not used to firing weapons at empty ranges?
Give me a break.

Wake up to yourself. Ordnance has "minimum safe ranges". A weapon cannot be dropped within x amount of metres of a friendly force without affecting them. Perhaps you could learn what some of these are, before you presume to tell those who do this sort of thing for a living what they "should" be doing?

They are listed as light attack on an RAAF site.

Great. Really wonderful. Again, perhaps you could discuss the Australian rules of engagement for Afghanistan and whether unguided air launched weapons meets these requirements?

Lots of air forces, including the RAF used and continue use them in this role.

No they don't. Neither RAAF, RAF, USAF nor any other Hawk user has deployed them to Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else in recent years to conduct combat operations.

Weapons are used as required, not as designed. IMHO Hawks happen to be more suitable for use in Afghanistan than the F/A-18s.

Rubbish. Here's why the Hawk Mk 127's are unsuitable.

1. No radar capability.
2. No EO/IR capability.
3. No FLIR capability.
4. No laser target designation capability.
5. No EW self protection capability.
6. Inadequate weapons capability (no precision weapons, limited overall A2G weapons capability).
7. Inadequate communications capability.
8. Inadequate range and payload capability.

Why the Hornets are eminently suited to Afghanistan.

1. Radar capability.
2. EO/IR capability.
3. FLIR capability.
4. Laser target designation capability.
5. Adequate EW self protection capability for the theatre.
6. Adequate weapons capability (20mm, laser/GPS-INS precision weapons capability, extensive overall A2G weapons capability).
7. Adequate communications capability (including data-link systems for recon and real-time download to JTAC/Special Forces teams).
8. Adequate range and payload capability.

It tells me that you can't l;earn to fly an F/A-18 until you actually fly in one. This is why there are 18 F/A-18Bs in the RAAF.

So a cockpit based on the F/A-18's and RAAF's extensive investment in F/A-18 simulators achieves precisely nothing?

The B's have no other use eh?

 

[StevoJH]

AD,

Arent the Reserve Cav units trading their Perenties in for Bushmasters? Because i'm fairly sure a Squadron from the Hunter River Lancers was in Iraq a while ago playing armoured transport to diplomats in their bushmasters not long ago.

The page for the /16th says they've got 15 Bushmasters in tamworth, not that i've ever seen them there except during country music week (they have some nice big sheds inside their fence). They were carting around random Country music singers in the during the cavalcade.

 

[FutureTank]

Does this mean you have dropped all your other proposals, & are now advocating only that Australia build AFVs?

Errr - Australia is building AFVs. One type, optimised for Australian conditions - which conveniently suits it for some other places & hence makes it attractive to some foreign armies. I've not seen anyone here argue that such niche capabilities are beyond Australias reach. I certainly haven't. Indeed, I've explicitly stated that they are practical for Australia. What I, & others, have argued is that Australia can't afford the broad spectrum of military industries you originally proposed.

Do let us know whether you're still in favour of your original proposal.

My original proposal?

My proposal has always been that Australian governments should have been looking at security as a much wider issue, and dealt with defence on the bases of an integrated capability rather than that of individual services.

Australia needs to be able to control the sea, and if required, strategic islands that will support control of sea, and trade routes.

We are in security terms not only required to assure territorial sovereignty of the waters, land mass and airspace, but also our links with the rest of the World.

Also, the ADF has to consider the future without United States as a viable ally in every scenario as happened with the British Empire.

The RAN has to plan for control-of-sea operations, not a 'presence'. The RAAF has to plan for operations from bases that lack landing strips, and are located well outside of the Australian airspace. The Army has to plan for conducting operations that are anything but low intensity. Because the service utility of defence platforms is extending to 30-40 years, the planning should also, and there is no suggestion that the World will remain unchanged in this period of time. If the economic capabilities of regional states such as China, India, South Korea and others were only being prophesied in 1979, they are a reality now, and Australia can not loose any more of its capacity for self-sufficiency, and indeed must aggressively seek to regain these industrial capabilities with full state support.

Spending additional money modifying, retrofitting and upgrading the bought platforms and systems, which over the past 30 years I have seen increase in final cost to as much as twice their original projected purchase price is ludicrous. These programs add little value to Australian technological knowledge base as the objectives of such projects is often to make old technology work as required, rather than creating new advanced capabilities that would give the ADF an edge in war.

 

[Marc 1]

Ask Sun Tzu - I think he established the principles.
Nope, the Pentagon established that type of conflict..

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

Nope, I dare you to hit a firing position of an ATGW from a moving Bushmaster at 2,000m with a 7.62mm MG.

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

I don't know if they envisaged adding anything to the Bushmaster when it was being designed in the 90s. Still, everything is possible. This is engineering flexibility you are talking about, and not Principles of War, and engine, transmission and suspension load ratings are less flexible than an infantry platoon

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).

They were used against the Soviet Army, and you only need one round, which is not impossible with today's commercially available optics. Spotting a well camouflaged sniper armed with a 23mm cannon is harder than one may imagine.

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.

I have never questioned anyone's knowledge level, only their ideas...which as you are probably aware can come from the most unlikely source.

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

Wars are a national engagement, not just that of its armed forces. This is why my argument is based as much on industrial policy as it is on a defence one. Such a policy is more likely to be supported in the long term by different parties, and therefore offers a greater measure of predictability and sustainability for defence planners also.

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.

Its not winnable. The aim is to destroy the Taliban, and with it Al Qaeda, but the Taliban represent the idea state in Islamic understanding, and Al Qaeda represent what a Muslim should do to free themselves of the Western influence.

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?

Ideally, the Afghan people. From what I've read they aren't that fussed by the taleban either, give them their own self determined rule and the confidence that NATO will be there for however long it takes, and you will see trust develop. With trust comes change. The Afghani's cannot trust any bugger because from the 1920's onward they have been occupied by every man and his dog. All have made promises, all have failed, or been kicked out. Incidentally, it may take 30 or 40 years, and I agree we will never see Afghanistan operating like a european democracy, but why should we want that? I believe the "lawyer jirga" (sp?) conducted established a rough set of rules as to the way the country was to be run and it didn't resemble the harsh taleban methodology or a european democracy.

I supported Gulf War 1 and its aims. But did not think that invading Afghanistan was smart. I did not think that Australia should be involved. I know it is militarily possible to win the war, but I also know that no government (even the communist soviet government as it was then) will stick it out long enough or make the necessary commitment (financial and lives) to make it work. Therefore combat was not the answer.

Nauru is a bad example I think. Are they not sinking and will eventually require resettlement?

No, they are not sinking. There are some island nations in the Pacific that are suffering from a rise in sea levels, I don't think any nation is 'sinking'

We should have always been thinking in terms of an interventionist, offensive force, but we were brought up to rely first on the British Empire, then on the USA. However, the offensive is the best defence, and the USA will not always be there for us. The British were not.

3 things here:

1. Who died and appointed us grand high invader and stabiliser of countries?

2. We are trying that interventionist /offensive idea you are talking about in Afghanistan - and according to you thats unwinable.

3. You seem to forget that you are talking political will here. We no longer believe in the red threat of communism sweeping down through asia for example, therefore our policy of forward defence has been null for decades. I agree that the island neighbours in our immediate region we should be able to assist if requested, but as to invading with this incredible amphibious assault force? That's not going to be acceptable at virtually any level short of one nation invading another. Fiji is a basket case at the moment - is your answer to invade and restore democracy?

Next week?
Ok, next month, but only because I'm so patient

And tell me how much longer is it going to take to design all of these things you are talking about and build them from scratch? At a minimum 2-3 times longer.

 

[FutureTank]

Again, you are plainly wrong. It is NOT an armoured vehicle, as Army classifies such things, nor is it entirely a B vehicle. It is something else. An armoured B vehicle, if you will.

What it most definitely is not is an armoured fighting vehicle. It is designed to provide protected mobility for infantry and other units.

Prior to the introduction of the Bushmaster. Army used Land Rovers and Unimogs in the roll that Bushmasters are now used.

The mechanised infantry of 1 Brigade don't use it. They use M113's. Currently the A1, with a limited number of A3/4's and as the vehicles roll off the production line, they will increasingly use nothing other than the M113AS3/4's.

As for it's intended purpose, it was originally intended to provide 6 Brigade with protected mobility in DoA operations. 6 Brigade providing the "depth" for Australian Army operations, with 1 Brigade conducting the "higher intensity" ops with a medium combat weight capability, 3 Brigade providing rapid deployment capabilities and 6 Brigade to support these two brigades and provide a rapid deployment capability.

The capability to deploy "rapidly" must be seen in the context of EVERYTHING that a Brigade needs to move and exercises were conducted in the 90's to validate this concept. I remember well 6RAR deploying to Quilpie (1000k's north west of Brisbane) a while ago. With it's vehicles, it was proven to deploy to this location quicker than if RAAF had been involved with it's available airlift capability, plus the deployed elements could support themselves, in the field for 3 days at a time.

As to your domestic production ideas. HA! The largest defence company in Australia has had to have direct Government funding to build sufficient facilities to produce the M113AS3/4 at a reasonable rate.

It is not the case that it can't be done. I'm sure we could build an AFV production capacity. The issue is the cost effectiveness. We don't have an unlimited budget and the benefit you claim would cost our ability to buy to the specification that we need.

M113AS3/4 was chosen to support a particular desire for votes, hence why production was crammed into an unsuitable facility in Victoria and hence why facilities have since had to be opened up in SA. The plan was not achievable in the timeframe required, nor with the capital expenditure invested.

While the project will eventually deliver some capability, an off the shelf purchase of say, Bradley M2A2's, using the same funding would have created significantly GREATER capability for Army, that based on the M1A1 refurbishment and contract signature in 2002 (same year as M113-UP) would have seen the new IFV capability reach IOC in 2006 and FOC by now.

Bushmaster has had some minor success, mostly due to excellent timing, moreso than the sheer brilliance of the capability, but there is a plethora of armoured vehicle projects worldwide.

People rave about Bushmaster but forget it is simply a design from an Irish design house. We didn't do anything special here.

People criticise M113-UP and forget it is largely an off the sheld German upgrade package, designed by FFG. (The issues came about because we were trying to use a running gear package on a stretched and significantly heavier hull).

Trying to build new armoured vehicles from scratch? Ha! We would simply be a small player, spending our limited budget ina futile attempt at reinventing the wheel and unlikely to significantly improve on existing designs.

AD, lets not play with words. The Bushmaster is an armoured vehicle that troops use. Troops are expected to fight. It is therefore a fighting vehicle whether they, you or I like it or not. In this day and age we should not be expecting to encounter only IEDs or 7.62mm ball.

We lack the capabilities BECAUSE we spend the money on buying things. And why?
You say we should buy a Bradley. Its a dud. It took 20 years to design, and it was an old design in the 1980s. It is completely unsuitable for Australia. Australia will not learn anything from purchasing it, but will spend billions yet again refurbishing and upgrading. Can't we ever buy the clothes that fit for a change instead of wearing hand-me-downs?

I don't understand this "from scratch" concept. Much of the design and prototyping today is done using CAD/CAM technology. The Irish didn't need a production facility to design the Bushmaster. This has been true since the 1980s. That's how the Soviet engineers were able to design the BMP-3 engine. Are you telling me this capability does not exist in Australia, because if you do, I have seen it.

As for the production facilities, one hopes the collective Australian political and bureaucratic infrastructure has learned something from the Bushmaster/M113 experiences. It seems to me that there should exist an independent defence project (maybe any project) oversight structure that can take the government to court, and force senior bureaucrat firing and ministerial resignations, rather than just an annual audit process that has no ability to effect change in project management where mismanagement is apparent for any number of reasons, including political.

Why the ****** did we have to go to Ireland to design an armoured bus, and to Germany to design a turret? Are we a clever country, or is that just an urban myth? Someone somewhere in the Government stopped caring about this country. So what if the cost of a local design is 15% greater. Its not like the local designer was going to run off to Ireland with the money, so they decided to invest there anyway, is it? The extra cost of local production is usually spent locally. Money spent elsewhere rarely returns to Australia.

The worse thing about it is that we are often ending up with the wrong stuff.

Deploying 1,000km west of Brisbane was a waste of time. It only proved that the Army could find Quilpie on the map. How about 2500km north of Brisbane? Remember Lae? Australians fought there for a reason. "Lest we forget" does not mean just remembering to have a beer on ANZAC day. East Timor was a stretch, and a wake up call, but we are now a decade on. Has the ADF capability for deployments changed significantly? Yes, we can now deploy by C-17s much quicker, but the situation has changed. If there is a clash with Indonesian forces there, the transports will need escorts, so a naval approach would be much safer, and it won't be to Dili harbour either.

Can the ADF go 2714km NW of Darwin?

I would much prefer the system of designation used in the British Army of armoured, mechanised, light, air assault and territorial infantry battalions. The British Army functions on very similar premises to those of ADF if one considers it outside the NATO/EU participation. Wherever it goes outside of Europe, it goes by sea and air, a long distance, and aggressively. The ADF may not have to go as far as the Falklands, but can it go half way, a third? Will Bushmasters be useful when it gets there? Where these questions even asked in 1996?

 

[Marc 1]

Marc 1, the Bushmaster was not designed for "this war". I think the first production vehicle was accepted for testing by the Army in mid-90s, wasn't it? That's before 9/11. So what kind of war/doctrine was it designed for? Or was this based on input form the ADF's famed 12th Crystal Ball company?

You really do have no idea do you? The bushie was introduced to replace the IMV's (6x6 land rovers) that 6 brigade as a motorised brigade was using in the 90's. The rovers suffered in mobility, space, conditions the soldiers were carried in and protection.

I have never claimed the Bushmaster was designed for the current conflicts. Here's a newsflash, a military normally doesn't get enough notice of an impending conflict to specifically design, and bring into service weapon systems for each specific conflict. Very occasionally you will see an expedient measure introduced such as the MRAP's for the US (with all their attendent limitations) or more commonly upgrading of existing vehcles or systems.

What was it designed for? As a protected replacement for the rovers, as a battle taxi. Its not a MICV- it doesn't need to be, for the role it is employed it it works very well. Perhaps if we had a modern MICV we may have deployed that as well to the sandpit, but I think that the bushie would have better IED protection than any existing tracked MICV due to its V shaped hull and the fact that the further away the vehicle's hull is from the blast the less its effects. As IED's are a larger threat than being engaged by enemy heavy weapons and armoured vehicles, the bushie works well. The MICV would perhaps only be employed in certain set piece assaults (extremely rare in Afg, and so far none in our AO).

This will be my last on this issue. I and many other with so much more experience in operations, procurement and systems design and manufacture have given our opinions, but clearly we know nothing as your 'ideas' beat experience, commonsense and knowledge every time.

 

[Feanor]

Does the ADF have a capability for a high intensity conflict?

Is it a doctrinal requirement?

Unlike you, I have not been lucky enough to have flown in them
The Su-27SK & Su-30MKK are export versions of the Russian aircraft, and even those we are not sure about. The J-10 is a mongrel, and Chinese excel in 'borrowing' from others, but in this case the sum of all parts may not equal to a 4th generation whole.

It has nothing to do with flying in the aircraft. Please stop making remarks that are inflammatory, or are easily perceived as such.

The Su-27 and derivatives of, are widely considered 4th generation aircraft. It's also typically recognized that the J-10 is a 4th generation (early) aircraft. This is pretty much in the category of common knowledge. However if you wish to dispute that, please tell me which criteria of a 4th generation aircraft do the Flanker derivatives, and J-10 not meet? Thrust to weight ratio? Modern aerodynamic design? Active radar guided BVRAAM? Advanced radars?

First set up a research project within the DSTO. Then set up project university collaboration infrastructure. Then expand the research infrastructure to the design stage with industry participation. With a completed design, conduct development and testing within the RAAF facilities. Refine and complete design. Commence production. Doesn't matter if it takes two decades to build the first production aircraft as it did with the F-35. It doesn't matter if by that stage Australia will only be able to afford a single squadron, or even half a squadron. It will have been an investment in enriching Australia's collective aviation technology knowledge base contributing to hundreds of project managers, engineers, technicians, etc. It will have produced a capability that Australia needs given its strategic position on the globe. Just maybe it will have produced other innovations along the way that will find use in civil aviation to earn revenue for continuation of the project like the CSIRO mobile technology

And will cost in the tens of billions. Once again how do you sell the public a need for a huge budget hike?

And its not that hard even with existing technology. Take an F-35, and redesign it with two engines, and you will get an F-22 make-do-with. Add larger engines and more on-board fuel, and you get a long range fighter/strike aircraft. Yes, I know its not that simple, but we have technology now that was not available in 1980s, or even 1990s. Computer modelling can, and has achieved spectacular progress in engineering design. And Australia doesn't have to do it alone. Partner with all the countries that have asked for and will not get the F-22. Partner with other countries that may want a long range maritime strike aircraft. Japan, Israel, even dare I say the USA? EU might be interested.

Please tell me, the question of licensing and property rights doesn't concern you when dealing with an F-35? And what generation do you intend your fighter to be by the time it's finished? Both Russia, the US, and a number of European countries have decided that developing their fighters from scratch isn't a good idea and instead decide to do it internationally with much help. They have a huge technology base, a huge production base, a large domestic market, and fairly likely foreign orders. But they can't afford to develop a speicalized maritime strike fighter, with the exception of Russia, but even then it's only a modification of the venerable Flanker, and the continuation of a Soviet-era project, quite different from developing what will need to be a 5th gen (which is the least that you need given your design time) aircraft with no research and technology base, and little previous experience in the area. Better yet where do you intend to find a market? The Su-34 maritime strike version (Su-32MF) already exists. It can be produced (if someone pays for it) serially, and comes from a proven and well established aviation company. It has yet to win any export orders. Yet you seem to be under the impression that the whole world is just waiting to jump on board with an Australian project, that lacks the necessary infrastructure, experience, and funding, to make it a success. Please do some critical thinking. A cost-benefits analysis would also work well.

But development is exactly what I want for Australia. Development is a cost, but also has significant benefits. The price we pay to others is for them sharing their products with us, but not their KNOWLEDGE! That, in the information age, is more expensive. And right now is the time to gain this knowledge because there are going to be significant changes in armoured vehicle designs as designers try to find alternatives to reliance on existing engine technologies.

So you want to simultaneously spend tens of billions on a new maritime strike fighter, and on a new IFV? Again, where do you find these obscene piles of money? Please tell me, I could sure use some.

Which part of the liberal economic theory applies to national security?!

The part where you expect some company to do all this. Or do you propose a state-run effort?

Yes. ATGW's that the taleban is likely to use are normally SACLOS, you disrupt (supress) the firer and he cannot guide the missile.

Nope, I dare you to hit a firing position of an ATGW from a moving Bushmaster at 2,000m with a 7.62mm MG.

Please take the time to read what's presented to you. You don't need to hit the ATGW team, just force them to move, losing LOS.

What they said is that there are a few challenges. Like money. But there is money. There is always enough money. Just have to find it and harness it. Mix it with a bit of enthusiasm, and off you go.

Please tell me where I can get this money, that according to you is just harnessed. It would go a long ways towards paying for my college. :

Seriously, though where do you propose to get the money to purchase all these weapon systems once they are produced.

[quote="Aussie Digger]What are these mobile SAM firing platforms that can fire guided SAM's whilst actually moving?
[/quote]

They don't exist. The only system that claims the capability (to my knowledge) is the Pantsyr-1. And I'd be skeptical about their definition of "moving". Allegedly the Tunguska (direct predecessor) could fire the gun only, while moving. And both are short ranged SAM/SPAAG hybrids, intended not for independent use, but for use as part of a larger IADS.

Better yet what kind of air war doctrine is this part of, FutureTank? The USSR and now Russia spend a lot of time developing sophisticated and occasionally highly capable, GBAD to, in some ways, make up for a less capable air force. Australia invested in SH and JSF for a reason.

 

[FutureTank]

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 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?

Ideally, the Afghan people. From what I've read they aren't that fussed by the taleban either, give them their own self determined rule and the confidence that NATO will be there for however long it takes, and you will see trust develop. With trust comes change. The Afghani's cannot trust any bugger because from the 1920's onward they have been occupied by every man and his dog. All have made promises, all have failed, or been kicked out. Incidentally, it may take 30 or 40 years, and I agree we will never see Afghanistan operating like a european democracy, but why should we want that? I believe the "lawyer jirga" (sp?) conducted established a rough set of rules as to the way the country was to be run and it didn't resemble the harsh taleban methodology or a european democracy.

I supported Gulf War 1 and its aims. But did not think that invading Afghanistan was smart. I did not think that Australia should be involved. I know it is militarily possible to win the war, but I also know that no government (even the communist soviet government as it was then) will stick it out long enough or make the necessary commitment (financial and lives) to make it work. Therefore combat was not the answer.

No, they are not sinking. There are some island nations in the Pacific that are suffering from a rise in sea levels, I don't think any nation is 'sinking'

3 things here:

1. Who died and appointed us grand high invader and stabiliser of countries?

2. We are trying that interventionist /offensive idea you are talking about in Afghanistan - and according to you thats unwinable.

3. You seem to forget that you are talking political will here. We no longer believe in the red threat of communism sweeping down through asia for example, therefore our policy of forward defence has been null for decades. I agree that the island neighbours in our immediate region we should be able to assist if requested, but as to invading with this incredible amphibious assault force? That's not going to be acceptable at virtually any level short of one nation invading another. Fiji is a basket case at the moment - is your answer to invade and restore democracy?

And tell me how much longer is it going to take to design all of these things you are talking about and build them from scratch? At a minimum 2-3 times longer.

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.

 

[FutureTank]

You really do have no idea do you? The bushie was introduced to replace the IMV's (6x6 land rovers) that 6 brigade as a motorised brigade was using in the 90's. The rovers suffered in mobility, space, conditions the soldiers were carried in and protection.

And we need 700+ of them for the 6 Brigade, and the four companies deployed in the combat zones? Right...

 

[FutureTank]

Is it a doctrinal requirement?

It has nothing to do with flying in the aircraft. Please stop making remarks that are inflammatory, or are easily perceived as such.

The Su-27 and derivatives of, are widely considered 4th generation aircraft. It's also typically recognized that the J-10 is a 4th generation (early) aircraft. This is pretty much in the category of common knowledge. However if you wish to dispute that, please tell me which criteria of a 4th generation aircraft do the Flanker derivatives, and J-10 not meet? Thrust to weight ratio? Modern aerodynamic design? Active radar guided BVRAAM? Advanced radars?

And will cost in the tens of billions. Once again how do you sell the public a need for a huge budget hike?

Please tell me, the question of licensing and property rights doesn't concern you when dealing with an F-35? And what generation do you intend your fighter to be by the time it's finished? Both Russia, the US, and a number of European countries have decided that developing their fighters from scratch isn't a good idea and instead decide to do it internationally with much help. They have a huge technology base, a huge production base, a large domestic market, and fairly likely foreign orders. But they can't afford to develop a speicalized maritime strike fighter, with the exception of Russia, but even then it's only a modification of the venerable Flanker, and the continuation of a Soviet-era project, quite different from developing what will need to be a 5th gen (which is the least that you need given your design time) aircraft with no research and technology base, and little previous experience in the area. Better yet where do you intend to find a market? The Su-34 maritime strike version (Su-32MF) already exists. It can be produced (if someone pays for it) serially, and comes from a proven and well established aviation company. It has yet to win any export orders. Yet you seem to be under the impression that the whole world is just waiting to jump on board with an Australian project, that lacks the necessary infrastructure, experience, and funding, to make it a success. Please do some critical thinking. A cost-benefits analysis would also work well.

So you want to simultaneously spend tens of billions on a new maritime strike fighter, and on a new IFV? Again, where do you find these obscene piles of money? Please tell me, I could sure use some.

The part where you expect some company to do all this. Or do you propose a state-run effort?

Please take the time to read what's presented to you. You don't need to hit the ATGW team, just force them to move, losing LOS.

Please tell me where I can get this money, that according to you is just harnessed. It would go a long ways towards paying for my college. :

Seriously, though where do you propose to get the money to purchase all these weapon systems once they are produced.

They don't exist. The only system that claims the capability (to my knowledge) is the Pantsyr-1. And I'd be skeptical about their definition of "moving". Allegedly the Tunguska (direct predecessor) could fire the gun only, while moving. And both are short ranged SAM/SPAAG hybrids, intended not for independent use, but for use as part of a larger IADS.

Better yet what kind of air war doctrine is this part of, FutureTank? The USSR and now Russia spend a lot of time developing sophisticated and occasionally highly capable, GBAD to, in some ways, make up for a less capable air force. Australia invested in SH and JSF for a reason.

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.

You assume that every defence project has to cost billions, nay tens of billions of dollars. It need not. Change is coming Feanor

Sorry if you thought I made inflammatory remarks. I won't again...

 

[Aussie Digger]

And we need 700+ of them for the 6 Brigade, and the four companies deployed in the combat zones? Right...

No. As has been pointed out to you multiple times already, we need 700+ for 7 Brigade, 6 Brigade hasn't existed for more than 10 years.

We need them for the combat support units of 1 Brigade, as the COMBAT UNITS are equipped with M113AS3/4 or will be by 2011.

We need Bushmasters for B Sqn 3/4 Cav and The Hunter Valley Lancer Regiment has a squadron of Bushmasters, they operate in support of the School of Infantry.

Starting to sink in yet?

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD, lets not play with words. The Bushmaster is an armoured vehicle that troops use. Troops are expected to fight. It is therefore a fighting vehicle whether they, you or I like it or not. In this day and age we should not be expecting to encounter only IEDs or 7.62mm ball.

I suppose the quad-bikes used by 3RAR to haul around their mortars and Charlie G's are fighting vehicles then too?

You say we should buy a Bradley. Its a dud. It took 20 years to design, and it was an old design in the 1980s. It is completely unsuitable for Australia. Australia will not learn anything from purchasing it, but will spend billions yet again refurbishing and upgrading. Can't we ever buy the clothes that fit for a change instead of wearing hand-me-downs?

Why is it a dud? It carries the number of dismount troops in the back that we need. It has outstanding firepower and armour protection and has the mobility to keep up with Abrams, something you criticise the M113 for.

Will not learn anything from purchasing it? Ah, yes we will. We will learn what it is like to have a modern and capable infantry fighting vehicle in service. Something we cannot learn from attempting to design and produce ourselves, because we can't afford it.

In any case, I used Bradley as an example. I never said we SHOULD buy it, but I will now. We SHOULD have bought zero-lifed M2A2 Bradley's in 2002, off the shelf as part of the USA's own production line. They would be in-service now and only you would be whingeing about the lost "knowledge" opportunities.

Army would be quite happily developing a serious mechanised infantry capability.

Deploying 1,000km west of Brisbane was a waste of time. It only proved that the Army could find Quilpie on the map. How about 2500km north of Brisbane? Remember Lae? Australians fought there for a reason. "Lest we forget" does not mean just remembering to have a beer on ANZAC day. East Timor was a stretch, and a wake up call, but we are now a decade on. Has the ADF capability for deployments changed significantly? Yes, we can now deploy by C-17s much quicker, but the situation has changed. If there is a clash with Indonesian forces there, the transports will need escorts, so a naval approach would be much safer, and it won't be to Dili harbour either.

Can the ADF go 2714km NW of Darwin?

How far away is Iraq, again? What about Somalia? How far is Afghanistan for that matter? I'm pretty sure we deployed armour and infantry to all of those places...

 

[FutureTank]

That's because a Minister has to be diplomatic in his speech. Defence Capability Plan priorities are matched closely against the capabilities that "threat countries" can or are likely to be able to deploy in the near future.

What? Who said they were? I said "Infantry IET courses". If you don't know what IET stands for, I think you're time should be better spent elsewhere, because it would be patently obvious you have not a clue...

Rubbish.

1. Bushmaster is not issued to the infantry Corps at ALL, except in 6 and 8/9RAR. 1,2,3,4,5 and 7 RAR will NOT have the vehicle and neither will any Reserve infantry unit.

I'm starting to agree with Wooki. One minute you're telling us that Afghanistan is a "real war" and the next you say the Bushmaster is not something to go to a real war in.

Make your mind up troll or get lost.

This is getting amusing. So if we were to choose a different vehicle with different capabilities, how is infantry going to be able to AVOID changing it's doctrine?

I agree, but it wasn't.

Next!

Er, except for those big things with large wingspans...

Rubbish. Neither HMAS Kanimbla or Manoora were in-service when Interfet landed in Timor.

Nor were C-17's.

ESSM - do have.

SM-2 - do have the missiles...

I happen to know that Land Rovers are not confined to roads, I think I read somewhere that they do in fact have 4x4 capability...

Yep. The upgrade was cancelled in 2004 because Abrams was ordered to replace it...

Abrams were delivered in 2006 and IOC reached in 2007.

What are these mobile SAM firing platforms that can fire guided SAM's whilst actually moving?

The USA doesn't have one to the best of my knowledge.

The majority of SAM systems on the planet are handheld and the major systems require TEL's (transport erector launchers - Patriot, S-300 etc).

Btw I just checked a few SAM systems.

The USA uses:

1. Avenger.

2. SL-AMRAAM.

3. Patriot

4. THAAD.

Guess what the predominant feature of the vehicles on ALL these systems is?


What does that tell you about the relative importance of the vehicles?

Again, rubbish. Even the Israeli's don't subscribe to that and they face a FAR higher threat level than we do.

You cannot even imagine the cost of trying to fit out M1A1 levels of protection on 600 plus vehicles, can you?

No-one in ADF has made this suggestion.

What has happened is that for the purpose of training efficiencies, 81mm mortars have been introduced into reserve artillery units. A gunner can be trained to use an artillery piece in a matter of a few weeks. What is important is the firing procedures, CP procedures and experience in firing fire support missions, not the particular piece which is used for low priority (in terms of deployment readiness) units.

Army experience has been that with existing levels of funding and access to training facilities, courses etc, concentrating on the core skills for these soldiers provides greater outcomes than attempting to "copy" the skills maintained by regular units on the more complex (both technically and in their employment) platforms.

The experience is the same in Armoured Corps. Obsolete M113AS1's, which aren't funded for replacement in Ares units anyway, have made way for Recon/Surveillance variants of Land Rovers.

The rationale being, that employing less sophisticated platforms allows the units to focus on individual and collective training activities, rather than on maintenance of the more complex equipment, much of which is obsolete anyway (M113AS1's and M2A2 105mm guns would be GREAT in a modern battle).

With Ares moving to an individual and sub-unit reinforcement basis, rather than a "base for expansion" basis, it is allowing Ares soldiers to obtain higher qualifications in their core skills, allowing greater opportunities to reinforce regular units deploying on operations, rather than continuing to provide no actual operational capability, but maintaining a charade of having "war time" equipment.

The answer of course is more money. But it isn't available and if it were, there are more important priorities for the deployed and regular force to fill than rounding out non-deployable Ares units.

Not really. How many soldiers have been killed due to a lack of offensive fire support on our operations?

How many mission failures have we had, for the same reason?

ADF personnel are already supported by AH-64 Apache helos and more than 2... Our own would be nice of course, but is it truly essential to achieve our mission?

Seems to me our mission is already being substantially achieved, notwithstanding that we could and should do a whole lot more.

What they do, IS directly relevant to us. An operational capability on a different (older) version of the helicopter in French service was reached yesterday. The initial capability. Not full capability.

Our version has NOT even reached this. As a particular instance of why we cannot deploy our helicopters, if you'd bother to do your research, you'd know that the 68mm rocket system we have bought with our helicopters, is still experiencing significant issues in relation to their backblast and the effect on the airframe from such.

Issues that require an engineering change to our helos.

Another issue is that the "operational" software load for our aircraft has not yet been completely developed. Whilst significant progress has been made, all the sensor and flight data, weapon and EW counter-measures systems need to be tested with each software load. Things are improving, but they aren't ready yet.

Army testified about this, in front of the Senate just a couple of weeks ago. It is these sorts of teething problems that mean our helos can't reach IOC and thus can't yet be deployed.

Does it mean the helos are no good and should be replaced? Nope, just that issues exist that have to be worked through.

That is reality. Go an order a new car. You don't always get it the same day you order it.

Go and build a new tank. The weapon systems needs to be fired in a large number of scenarios to verify it meets your requirements. Armour needs to be tested, mobility needs to be tested. Problems need to be addressed through engineering solutions.

Is that satisfactory? It is real life...

Maybe it should operate a HARM anti-radiation missile capability. Maybe it should operate a tactical recon pod capability.

There are any number of capabilities RAAF could have. Unlike you, RAAF like the rest of ADF have to make a choice between priorities.

Where is the money coming from?

Really? Which one? RAAF currently operates 2 types and has another one on order.

The AN/AAS-38 Nitehawk targetting pod and the Litening AT targetting pod. The ATFLIR pod is on order.

Know a bit about it do you? What procedures would you put in place to ensure these unguided rockets didn't cause a blue on blue?

Can you please explain the differences in minimum safe ranges between 2.75 inch rockets and precision guided 500lbs and larger bombs and how these apply to the fire support requirements for ground forces in Afghanistan?

No? Well perhaps you could try and find out some of these things before telling all what should and should not be done.

Wake up to yourself. Ordnance has "minimum safe ranges". A weapon cannot be dropped within x amount of metres of a friendly force without affecting them. Perhaps you could learn what some of these are, before you presume to tell those who do this sort of thing for a living what they "should" be doing?

Great. Really wonderful. Again, perhaps you could discuss the Australian rules of engagement for Afghanistan and whether unguided air launched weapons meets these requirements?

No they don't. Neither RAAF, RAF, USAF nor any other Hawk user has deployed them to Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else in recent years to conduct combat operations.

Rubbish. Here's why the Hawk Mk 127's are unsuitable.

1. No radar capability.
2. No EO/IR capability.
3. No FLIR capability.
4. No laser target designation capability.
5. No EW self protection capability.
6. Inadequate weapons capability (no precision weapons, limited overall A2G weapons capability).
7. Inadequate communications capability.
8. Inadequate range and payload capability.

Why the Hornets are eminently suited to Afghanistan.

1. Radar capability.
2. EO/IR capability.
3. FLIR capability.
4. Laser target designation capability.
5. Adequate EW self protection capability for the theatre.
6. Adequate weapons capability (20mm, laser/GPS-INS precision weapons capability, extensive overall A2G weapons capability).
7. Adequate communications capability (including data-link systems for recon and real-time download to JTAC/Special Forces teams).
8. Adequate range and payload capability.

So a cockpit based on the F/A-18's and RAAF's extensive investment in F/A-18 simulators achieves precisely nothing?

The B's have no other use eh?

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.

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.

I'll make sure to write to the RAAF and ask them to amend their website.

I had not read that report on the Tiger.

Money well spent I say nfloorl: maybe hey can do a fly-past for the welcome home parade c.2012?

For crying out loud, does ANYTHING we ever buy work as required on delivery?
Oh, I forget, Howard bought the M1s...took a lawyer to get something that works

Talking here is a waste of my time...

 

[FutureTank]

No. As has been pointed out to you multiple times already, we need 700+ for 7 Brigade, 6 Brigade hasn't existed for more than 10 years.

We need them for the combat support units of 1 Brigade, as the COMBAT UNITS are equipped with M113AS3/4 or will be by 2011.

We need Bushmasters for B Sqn 3/4 Cav and The Hunter Valley Lancer Regiment has a squadron of Bushmasters, they operate in support of the School of Infantry.

Starting to sink in yet?

Yes, it has sunk in.
I'll look for news of the 7 Brigade being deployed to Afghanistan

Always good to know they found the right vehicles for the cavalry too

 

[FutureTank]

I suppose the quad-bikes used by 3RAR to haul around their mortars and Charlie G's are fighting vehicles then too?

Why is it a dud? It carries the number of dismount troops in the back that we need. It has outstanding firepower and armour protection and has the mobility to keep up with Abrams, something you criticise the M113 for.

Will not learn anything from purchasing it? Ah, yes we will. We will learn what it is like to have a modern and capable infantry fighting vehicle in service. Something we cannot learn from attempting to design and produce ourselves, because we can't afford it.

In any case, I used Bradley as an example. I never said we SHOULD buy it, but I will now. We SHOULD have bought zero-lifed M2A2 Bradley's in 2002, off the shelf as part of the USA's own production line. They would be in-service now and only you would be whingeing about the lost "knowledge" opportunities.

Army would be quite happily developing a serious mechanised infantry capability.

How far away is Iraq, again? What about Somalia? How far is Afghanistan for that matter? I'm pretty sure we deployed armour and infantry to all of those places...

nfloorl:
Ok, that does it for me.
Bye