Buying Water Bombers For Australia?
Aerial Perspective, your detailed account of how strategic deterrence works, while absolutely riveting and great entertainment value, is irrelevant to this thread
And for what it's worth, if you really think the Collins class subs have spent their entire time in Australian waters, it says more about how ill conceived your views on defence spending are than anything I or anyone else could reply to you with, so you've saved me some effort.
And for what it's worth, if you really think the Collins class subs have spent their entire time in Australian waters, it says more about how ill conceived your views on defence spending are than anything I or anyone else could reply to you with, so you've saved me some effort.
Aerial Perspective, your detailed account of how strategic deterrence works, while absolutely riveting and great entertainment value, is irrelevant to this thread
And for what it's worth, if you really think the Collins class subs have spent their entire time in Australian waters, it says more about how ill conceived your views on defence spending are than anything I or anyone else could reply to you with, so you've saved me some effort.
And for what it's worth, if you really think the Collins class subs have spent their entire time in Australian waters, it says more about how ill conceived your views on defence spending are than anything I or anyone else could reply to you with, so you've saved me some effort.
As for the submarines, they have been so plagued with problems from day 1, what makes you think the new ones will be any different?
"A fleet of up to 43 F-111s including spare airframes were in the service of the RAAF for 37 years and never fired a shot in any conflict."
One of the reasons they never fired a shot is we had them.
Called a deterrent.
"6 Collin's Class submarines, how many times have they been deployed in a war zone???"
Likely you will never know.
One of the reasons they never fired a shot is we had them.
Called a deterrent.
"6 Collin's Class submarines, how many times have they been deployed in a war zone???"
Likely you will never know.
Thread Starter
Oh dear! I don’t know where to start...... As for the subs, nobody will tell you what they get up to,
but if it’s anything like Oberon class escapades, they suffice. As for the aircraft, the F111, I’m told it was problematic once look down/shoot down system became readily available but I wouldn’t know. I also think I heard that there are these things called stand off weapons that don’t require an F111 to deliver them effectively.
but if it’s anything like Oberon class escapades, they suffice. As for the aircraft, the F111, I’m told it was problematic once look down/shoot down system became readily available but I wouldn’t know. I also think I heard that there are these things called stand off weapons that don’t require an F111 to deliver them effectively.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'deterrent' was thrown away in 2010, so that argument doesn't wash. The submarines have been plagued with problems from day one, what makes you think the new ones will be any different? Singapore now has a more potent Air Force than we do so don't make me laugh...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If what we hear is true regarding our submarine procurement program, prejudice and outright ineptness would lead us to the conclusion that they will be a giant white elephant.
Obsolete before the first one is delivered, massively expensive because of Australia's unique requirements and very difficult to find manpower to crew from what we hear regarding our current boats, which apparently Beijing can hear when they start engines for a mission.
I may be very wrong because I have only what I read to go on but I can't help believing we may be shooting ourselves in the foot for not embracing nuclear.
Same prejudice that prevents us from building the only emissions free technology for generating affordable base load electricity.
Obsolete before the first one is delivered, massively expensive because of Australia's unique requirements and very difficult to find manpower to crew from what we hear regarding our current boats, which apparently Beijing can hear when they start engines for a mission.
I may be very wrong because I have only what I read to go on but I can't help believing we may be shooting ourselves in the foot for not embracing nuclear.
Same prejudice that prevents us from building the only emissions free technology for generating affordable base load electricity.
Australia's unique requirements
I may be very wrong because I have only what I read to go on but I can't help believing we may be shooting ourselves in the foot for not embracing nuclear.
Same prejudice that prevents us from building the only emissions free technology for generating affordable base load electricity.
Same prejudice that prevents us from building the only emissions free technology for generating affordable base load electricity.
Back to the thread, when can we expect to see the first of our own aerial assets, other than the NSW 737.?
I wonder how many workers have been killed in the erection of wind turbines or installing solar panels.
"I may be very wrong because I have only what I read to go on but I can't help believing we may be shooting ourselves in the foot for not embracing nuclear."
Nuclear isn't simple and it isn't cheap - go look and see how much it costs the Brits to keep their N subs running and how long and how much it costs to build them
Nuclear isn't simple and it isn't cheap - go look and see how much it costs the Brits to keep their N subs running and how long and how much it costs to build them
Oh dear! I don’t know where to start...... As for the subs, nobody will tell you what they get up to,
but if it’s anything like Oberon class escapades, they suffice. As for the aircraft, the F111, I’m told it was problematic once look down/shoot down system became readily available but I wouldn’t know. I also think I heard that there are these things called stand off weapons that don’t require an F111 to deliver them effectively.
but if it’s anything like Oberon class escapades, they suffice. As for the aircraft, the F111, I’m told it was problematic once look down/shoot down system became readily available but I wouldn’t know. I also think I heard that there are these things called stand off weapons that don’t require an F111 to deliver them effectively.
Not to mention that as stated, if they don't get everything on the way in, they'll be toast on the way out.
The fact this has happened (the F-111 being retired) means that the deterrent really isn't required required other than for 'show'. The fact is, according to several military people I've known over the years, it is ALL show because we actually are incapable of defending ourselves if it happened anyway. So, we may as well have kept the F-111s and spent the money on something else. They ONLY reason the USAF agreed to retire their F-111s is because they got the larger scale B-1B to replace it.
As for the subs, yeh, I may not 'ever' know whether they're used or have been or not but the understanding of most people is they've spent most of their life in port due to endless problems.
Most of the rhetoric from defence and government is BS... I remember the Chief of AF saying at the time "Range isn't really important these days" when being questioned about the fact the F-18F has a 5th of the range of the F-111 and is slower... Mmm... that'd be why the RAAF have been looking into conformal tanks for the F-18 Supers in the last few years, because "range doesn't matter" (or, as is more likely, that was just the BS at the time to chop the -111s and justify buying a useless aircraft that no one other than the Americans have bought (then only because, well, the Military Industrial Complex) but now when it's died down a bit, it appears range is important. The F-18F was bought with zero evaluation and zero assessment, it's a known fact. I don't doubt we need a 'deterrent' but we should not be p-ssing money up against the wall on rubbish that has not even been assessed as meeting our capabilities.
Thread Starter
Aerial, i know SFA about current operational issues, but I knew enough in my day to suggest your analysis is “problematic”. You are welcome to your opinions.
"yes, they were old, but so will the USAF B-52 long range subsonic bombers be in 2045 when they are retired after 80 years service)"
I wouldn't bet on that .............. they will probably go on forever...........
I wouldn't bet on that .............. they will probably go on forever...........
Back onto subject.
With the end of service approaching for the blackhawks wonder if these would be viable to be converted to replace/suppliment the bell 214's. They had a bad year with 3 crashes but no fatalities, I have heard they all happened due to engine failure / hicups at low level. But with the blackhawk being a twin allow it operate more safely down at low altitude where bombing happens. Comes down to how clapped out and comparitive maintainence cost, we as a country obviously have the human skillsets for these aircraft, parts availablity would still be good
With the end of service approaching for the blackhawks wonder if these would be viable to be converted to replace/suppliment the bell 214's. They had a bad year with 3 crashes but no fatalities, I have heard they all happened due to engine failure / hicups at low level. But with the blackhawk being a twin allow it operate more safely down at low altitude where bombing happens. Comes down to how clapped out and comparitive maintainence cost, we as a country obviously have the human skillsets for these aircraft, parts availablity would still be good
Thread Starter
I have seen one Blackhawk(I think) fire bomber that was set up for night vision and night water bombing. I wouldn’t know if the Australian ones could be suited or if the Sikorsky/Defence supply contract permitted their use. Then there is the little matter of spares and maintenance.
]I have seen one Blackhawk(I think) fire bomber that was set up for night vision and night water bombing.
or if the Sikorsky/Defence supply contract permitted their use
Then there is the little matter of spares and maintenance
Coulson and someone else are partnered up to convert blackhawks and a chinooks in the same way they converted the the 737, by the time the blackhawks leave service these designs should be nailed down and certified
Theres a video of them on facebook about them
Last edited by rattman; 14th Feb 2020 at 20:55.
Something like 12,000 permanent paid rural firefighters for a state such as NSW appropriately resourced with future proactive vision, would change the landscape of fires in Australia.
Currently we are reactive when it comes to rural fires, with the exception of some small fuel reduction burns.
The 12,000 figure is a rough calculation, but just match the location and numbers of policemen in the non city areas. Job opportunities in rural towns is a good thing allround for towns.
Then some forward thinking - perhaps building canals in various sizes in strategic locations, for water bombing aircraft to collect water (more jobs and).Think big plan over time to have paid firemen and a fire fighting aircraft and helicopter in every town.
Cost, yes there is a large setup cost to get the ball rolling, but that is the same for all community infrastructure projects. Some of the cost offset would be much reduced short contracts at high prices, the main benefit other than safety and productivity is permanent jobs and training of a new industry in Australia. Jobs create jobs.
Our towns deserve to have a paid Doctor, Policeman, Mailman and a Fireman.
A perfect opportunity for development of intelligent drones. Could be a series of drones showing the best track to drop retardant using more than just visual cues - current ground condition data could be very useful.
