peterAustralia
Member
you are more cynical than me
5 a year might be a dry slow drumbeat. Maybe make it a 10 or 15 year project and do a base at a time so you get scale with the contractors.I guess it can be subjective, if say the figure quoted is approximately 11 million dollars per hardened hangar, thanks for the figure by the way. It is true that they will not stop everything, but IMHO are a lot better than nothing. The idea is that invest a modest number of dollars now, and have a fallback for many many decades/centuries into the future.
In decades to come, drones might fly very long distances, think of something like a predator drone, the range is not given publicly , but rough maths is from online sources gives 740km each way, then 14 hours on target, say loiter speed is 150km/h, then that gives a very approximate extreme range one way suicide mission of roughly 3000km. A rough guess for warhead size for a suicide drone of this size,,, say 100kg
There was a charity that wanted some money from a big corporation, the charity said it sounds better if you ask for five lots of X dollars, over five years, rather than 5X dollars upfront, the CEO replied that he was sure that all his executives could do the mathematics easily and would see through the deception. The point is big numbers sound better if you say it as a small number over a large number of years
It may well be that in the event of a war, enemy insurgents covertly enter the nation on tourist visas, and then given the command they then combine high end commercially available drones with a few kilograms of explosives. If planned well, ten to twenty small commercially bought drones if fitted with explosives could disable say the majority of the future Apache fleet in one night,, and apart from the military detriment, it would also be embarrassing. Which is worse? The military loss or the embarrassment caused? That is for others to say
Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka carried out an attack on Colombo airport, and destroyed a lot of planes for minimal dollar cost. The SAS destroyed quite a few Pucaras at Pebble island in Falklands, Israel destroyed a lot of planes on ground early in six day war,, am sure there are other examples. I dont know much about RAAF bases but HMAS Albatross does not look super secure to me from a suprise attack like the Tamils did... I am sure there are systems and things in place that are not disclosed publicly (and I dont need to know what they are),,, just that driving past it many times there appears to be just a chain link fence and about a thousand yards of grass between the road and the helicopters.
Australia is a big place, maybe smaller kamikaze drones are launched by special forces landed covertly on the northern coastline. Maybe drones are launched by slow moving semi submersibles that launch at 100km from the coast. Is hard to predict the future and all sorts of innovative and 'wonderful' weapons will be developed. A hardened hangar would not stop a 2000 lb bomb, it would probably stop a 500lb bomb. Maybe something like five hangars a year over 20 years, that is 55 million dollars a year, IMHO a modest sum. Note that hangars can be used for helicopters, expensive drones like loyal wingman, expensive planes like F18 growlers.. F35s. After twenty years there would be 100 hardened hangars, and each should last say 200 years or so, maybe longer...
Again is subjective, my view is that it is a reasonable investment,,, it is true it can take money away from other things. if viewed in comparison to cost of the submarines,,, it is about zero point three percent
I believe I understand your POV, but I myself tend to disagree with it. As can be seen by looking back over centuries of warfare, there are opposing development/counter-development cycles for offensive and defensive warfare. Humans have been building fortified structures for literally thousands of years, and also developing new weapons and techniques for attacking or otherwise neutralizing those fortifications. A structure built to fortify or protect something vs. the weapons and threats of today, could very well be obsolete or irrelevant a century from now, or possibly even earlier. A HAS designed and built to hangar a RAAF fighter aircraft of today, might still be useful many decades from now as an aircraft hangar, OTOH the costs to maintain the structure could over time become prohibitive, which is realistically hard to predict due to the range of potential variables. Concrete or concrete & steel structures can and do decay over time, also such structures can shift and settle. Also, what is currently needed or desired in a fighter hangar might very well change over the coming decades, and possibly the desired internal layout. As a result of these possible issues, I would not be so quick to assume that a HAS built today or in the next decade or two would still be relevant and useful a hundred years from now or more.I guess it can be subjective, if say the figure quoted is approximately 11 million dollars per hardened hangar, thanks for the figure by the way. It is true that they will not stop everything, but IMHO are a lot better than nothing. The idea is that invest a modest number of dollars now, and have a fallback for many many decades/centuries into the future.
In decades to come, drones might fly very long distances, think of something like a predator drone, the range is not given publicly , but rough maths is from online sources gives 740km each way, then 14 hours on target, say loiter speed is 150km/h, then that gives a very approximate extreme range one way suicide mission of roughly 3000km. A rough guess for warhead size for a suicide drone of this size,,, say 100kg
There was a charity that wanted some money from a big corporation, the charity said it sounds better if you ask for five lots of X dollars, over five years, rather than 5X dollars upfront, the CEO replied that he was sure that all his executives could do the mathematics easily and would see through the deception. The point is big numbers sound better if you say it as a small number over a large number of years
It may well be that in the event of a war, enemy insurgents covertly enter the nation on tourist visas, and then given the command they then combine high end commercially available drones with a few kilograms of explosives. If planned well, ten to twenty small commercially bought drones if fitted with explosives could disable say the majority of the future Apache fleet in one night,, and apart from the military detriment, it would also be embarrassing. Which is worse? The military loss or the embarrassment caused? That is for others to say
Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka carried out an attack on Colombo airport, and destroyed a lot of planes for minimal dollar cost. The SAS destroyed quite a few Pucaras at Pebble island in Falklands, Israel destroyed a lot of planes on ground early in six day war,, am sure there are other examples. I dont know much about RAAF bases but HMAS Albatross does not look super secure to me from a suprise attack like the Tamils did... I am sure there are systems and things in place that are not disclosed publicly (and I dont need to know what they are),,, just that driving past it many times there appears to be just a chain link fence and about a thousand yards of grass between the road and the helicopters.
Australia is a big place, maybe smaller kamikaze drones are launched by special forces landed covertly on the northern coastline. Maybe drones are launched by slow moving semi submersibles that launch at 100km from the coast. Is hard to predict the future and all sorts of innovative and 'wonderful' weapons will be developed. A hardened hangar would not stop a 2000 lb bomb, it would probably stop a 500lb bomb. Maybe something like five hangars a year over 20 years, that is 55 million dollars a year, IMHO a modest sum. Note that hangars can be used for helicopters, expensive drones like loyal wingman, expensive planes like F18 growlers.. F35s. After twenty years there would be 100 hardened hangars, and each should last say 200 years or so, maybe longer...
Again is subjective, my view is that it is a reasonable investment,,, it is true it can take money away from other things. if viewed in comparison to cost of the submarines,,, it is about zero point three percent
Wonder how many decoy F35s could be built with 11 million bucks, same dimensions, just mock ups. Maybe build 30 odd decoys, I'm sure a mock up wedgetail or 2 could also be built if need be.
Maybe we could buy a few infantry brigades of inflatable dolls!![]()
[Hot Item] 2019 Most Popular Inflatable Aircraft Fighter
Blower: Have Power: 110V /220V Store Bag: Have Color: Choose Type: Cartoon Character Inflation Method: Air Circulationcaixinflatable.en.made-in-china.com
China has you covered. Infatable fighters for between $US1000 to $US2800. Actually it would be an interesting PSYOP. The Chinese government would know we bought 1000 mock-up fighters off them. Confuse them no end.
Don't let them near officers or stokers then.Maybe we could buy a few infantry brigades of inflatable dolls!
The stokers wouldn’t give up their teddy bears so easily.Don't let them near officers or stokers then.
Possibly the JASSM-ER as well?Potent $1.5 billion upgrade to Australia's maritime surveillance with manned and unmanned aircraft - ABC News
A 4th MQ-4 Triton UAV has been ordered for the RAAF as well as upgrades for the P-8 Poseidon to allow them to be armed with new missiles with a range of up to 1000ks. While the missile type is not named, it is almost certainly the AGM-158C LRASM, which is currently on order.
The USN is not a JASSM operator so Australia would have to integrate it into our P-8s ourselves, certainly we are capable of doing it but is the RAAF planning to use the P-8 for land strike, if so then maybe they might.Possibly the JASSM-ER as well?
You’d imagine much of the aerodynamic testing would port straight across… Same weight, same outer mould line, largely equivalent weight distribution (you’d imagine) and likely similar G force constraints, same wiring and pylons you’d have to assume…
The USN was reported in 2021 as requesting FY2022 budget funds for the introduction of the AGM-158B (JASSM_ER) to be used on F/A-18E/F and F-35C aircraft. So while not using them on P-8s, as these are to carry the LRASM (AGM-158C) for anti-shipping roles, the USN is supposedly a user. Of course the byzantine process for US defence funding may not have seen them ordered.The USN is not a JASSM operator so Australia would have to integrate it into our P-8s ourselves, certainly we are capable of doing it but is the RAAF planning to use the P-8 for land strike, if so then maybe they might.
USN is indeed a JASSM-ER user. The AGM-158C-3 is a navalised variant of the AGM-158B2 JASSM-ER to be deployed by the USN.The USN is not a JASSM operator so Australia would have to integrate it into our P-8s ourselves, certainly we are capable of doing it but is the RAAF planning to use the P-8 for land strike, if so then maybe they might.
Read through the article and it indicated that whilst the AGM-158C-2 is in the works, it is not entirely clear which version of AGM-158 is its predecessor. The AGM-158B-2 for instance, had been known as the JASSM-XR, which featured a new wing to aid in reaching 'extreme' ranges out to ~1,000 n miles. The AGM-158C LRASM itself was a development from the AGM-158B JASSM-ER. The article did mention an AGM-158D, which adds a two-way datalink to an AGM-158B-2, but that does not match up with what I came across here on the Drive. The Drive article instead mentioned that the AGM-158D was a version of the AGM-158B which added a two-way datalink to enable engaging popup or moving/relocating targets.USN is indeed a JASSM-ER user. The AGM-158C-3 is a navalised variant of the AGM-158B2 JASSM-ER to be deployed by the USN.
U.S. Navy Comes Full Circle On JASSM Program | Aviation Week Network
After several cancellations over decades, the Navy’s revived interest in the Joint Air-to-Surface Missile family also reveals pursuit of more capabilities for it.aviationweek.com
The MQ-4C Triton has a different role to the P-8 Poseidon's primary role. The former is broad area maritime surveillance (hence its original name - BAMS) whilst the latter is anti-submarine warfare (true it also does maritime surveillance). The Triton has the endurance (reportedly >24 Hrs) while the Poseidon is limited by crew endurance (yes the P-8 can use AAR to extend flight time but that then requires another aircraft and crew). Really they are complementary systems rather than an either/or choice.The comment made by Marcus Hellyer about the relatively small number of Tritons being acquired is probably a fair point. Potentially a very niche and expensive capability to maintain particularly with so many other expensive acquisitions competing for funding.
To be honest I would have preferred a few extra P8s
100% correct.The MQ-4C Triton has a different role to the P-8 Poseidon's primary role. The former is broad area maritime surveillance (hence its original name - BAMS) whilst the latter is anti-submarine warfare (true it also does maritime surveillance). The Triton has the endurance (reportedly >24 Hrs) while the Poseidon is limited by crew endurance (yes the P-8 can use AAR to extend flight time but that then requires another aircraft and crew). Really they are complementary systems rather than an either/or choice.
The AGM-158B is the “original” JASSM-ER.Read through the article and it indicated that whilst the AGM-158C-2 is in the works, it is not entirely clear which version of AGM-158 is its predecessor. The AGM-158B-2 for instance, had been known as the JASSM-XR, which featured a new wing to aid in reaching 'extreme' ranges out to ~1,000 n miles. The AGM-158C LRASM itself was a development from the AGM-158B JASSM-ER. The article did mention an AGM-158D, which adds a two-way datalink to an AGM-158B-2, but that does not match up with what I came across here on the Drive. The Drive article instead mentioned that the AGM-158D was a version of the AGM-158B which added a two-way datalink to enable engaging popup or moving/relocating targets.