Tim Horton
Senior Member
Posts: 1,763
Likes: 1,948
|
Post by Tim Horton on Jul 26, 2020 7:45:31 GMT 10
Summary of the video. Limited info unfortunately. RAAF base Tindal in the NT is getting runway extensions to handle yank B-52s and heavy refuelling planes. We have no way of striking very far from Aus now the F-111s are gone. B-52s can. +++ Yes.. The old bad joke about how to break up anyones Bingo game is to call B52......
While droning around student pilots, I used to watch the Buff (big ugly fat farker) fly 400 feet, 400 knots over the MOA of the prairie provinces until they pinged the target pickup truck in the gully with the 5' diameter radar dish.. They could be below you and a mile or so away and you could see the guys turn there head in there white helmets.. I don't know if they still use the KC 135 as a tanker, but it is a big plane also.. ===
Also Aus can now buy advanced anti-ship missiles from the US. +++ I have to assume even something like the Cruise missile is old school by now, but none the less effective.. Like the RPG, you launch enough of them, you will do damage..
|
|
kelabar
Senior Member
Posts: 399
Likes: 469
|
Post by kelabar on Jul 26, 2020 10:32:25 GMT 10
KC-135, that's the one. I couldn't remember it. We have Boeing 727 or 737s or similar serving as refuellers, nowhere near as big. Refuellers are brave, they fly a big fuel tank around that the enemy really, REALLY wants to destroy. Gulp!
As I understand it (could be wrong) cruise missiles target a latitude and longitude, a set point. Unfortunately ships move around, they aren't keen on being blown up, so anti-ship missiles fly to a point then find the ships that are supposed to be there and home on them. Without the final targeting it would be blind luck to hit a ship with a cruise missile. So anti-ship missiles are crucial for Aus because we don't have a lot of subs or planes, which are the main ways to sink ships.
Anyway, doesn't matter, this week it is Taiwan that is gonna get it!
|
|
bug
Senior Member
Posts: 2,052
Likes: 1,857
|
Post by bug on Jul 26, 2020 11:34:51 GMT 10
China has built some nice island size targets in the Phillipines that a cruise missile wouldn't have much trouble hitting.
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Jul 26, 2020 16:25:11 GMT 10
Well then. Lets fire some and see what happens. I'd like to see what they've got to counter that. Hopefully not much.
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Jul 26, 2020 16:41:25 GMT 10
We want to support B52 ops?
They work great dropping stuff on goat herders who have no air defences. How are they supposed to be effective in an environment where systems like s400 are deployed? Can they safely get close enough to use ALCM's? And then ... can those ALCM's get through to target if they are super visible to electronic detection coming in from high altitude? I assume their thermal signal is significant?
If we're looking at deploying antiques from the early 60's we should get some SR 71's running as well. At least with those, even if the missions fail, we look damn fine in the attempt.
|
|
frostbite
VIP Member
Posts: 5,452
Likes: 6,972
Member is Online
|
Post by frostbite on Jul 26, 2020 17:17:48 GMT 10
B52 's were using Darwin airport in the early 1980's.
|
|
kelabar
Senior Member
Posts: 399
Likes: 469
|
Post by kelabar on Jul 26, 2020 18:34:23 GMT 10
Well then. Lets fire some and see what happens. Quick to anger, you are, young Jedi, slow to think. Unless, of course, every city in Aus over 100,000 population gets nuked. What's the old saying, "be careful what you wish for, you might get it". I think it was one of fei 's posts that mentioned "just China whipping up xenophobia as always". The chinese got nothing on you! We want to support B52 ops? Have you seen the comedy skits where the little guy is swinging away at the big guy but the big guy has his hand on the little guys head holding him away? The little guy swings and misses every time because he can't reach. Australia is the little guy since we dropped the F-111s. Ideally we would have a long-range fast Mach 2-3 bomber that could fly 'nap of the earth' and deliver nuke-tipped cruise missiles to our enemies anywhere in the world. But we haven't got any because we squawk enough at tax time as it is! So we want to support every damn thing we can. The only thing that matters in warfare is to win. Period. Use whatever the hell you've got. Our Hornets are 70s tech. Stiff. They can still kill so use them. A Cessna with a manual launch Sidewinder could take down an enemy plane. That'll do nicely. A Subaru Brumby ute with a TOW missile on the back of it can take out any tank in the world. Not very fashionable but who cares. Win. Yes B52s are slow, but they don't go in alone. Air attacks against defended targets are some of the most practiced and highly choreographed attacks known. Several hundred other planes would be used in support and it is worth it because B52s can carry huge amounts of weaponry. Dozens of cruise missiles or massive amounts of bombs. And they have a HUGE range. Typically enemy airfields are bombed to stop enemy aircraft taking off, known anti-air missiles sites and radars are bombed, any radar that comes up gets missiles, any missiles that do launch get countermeasures (or maybe shot down, not sure if this is possible yet), interceptors handle enemy aircraft, EW planes s p o o f (EDIT:auto censor) everything, all just to get the bombs on target. And that is only in the air. Comms facilities get bombed and jammed, command and control sites and headquarters get bombed, any site that might have any air defence capability gets bombed. There isn't a set way to win a war. You just keep swinging until the other guy can't swing back. Barfighting. If you want to stop the barfight then drive a bulldozer through the building. Sure everyone dies but the fight ends. Results count, not procedures, in war.
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Jul 29, 2020 8:00:19 GMT 10
Well then. Lets fire some and see what happens. Quick to anger, you are, young Jedi, slow to think. Unless, of course, every city in Aus over 100,000 population gets nuked. What's the old saying, "be careful what you wish for, you might get it". I think it was one of fei 's posts that mentioned "just China whipping up xenophobia as always". The chinese got nothing on you! Slow to recognise irony you are; Obi Wan. Look back through Spinifex's post history you must.
|
|
norseman
VIP Member
Practical is Tactical!
Posts: 2,149
Likes: 1,853
|
Post by norseman on Jul 29, 2020 8:36:32 GMT 10
Well then. Lets fire some and see what happens. Quick to anger, you are, young Jedi, slow to think. Unless, of course, every city in Aus over 100,000 population gets nuked. What's the old saying, "be careful what you wish for, you might get it". I think it was one of fei 's posts that mentioned "just China whipping up xenophobia as always". The chinese got nothing on you! We want to support B52 ops? Have you seen the comedy skits where the little guy is swinging away at the big guy but the big guy has his hand on the little guys head holding him away? The little guy swings and misses every time because he can't reach. Australia is the little guy since we dropped the F-111s. Ideally we would have a long-range fast Mach 2-3 bomber that could fly 'nap of the earth' and deliver nuke-tipped cruise missiles to our enemies anywhere in the world. But we haven't got any because we squawk enough at tax time as it is! So we want to support every damn thing we can. The only thing that matters in warfare is to win. Period. Use whatever the hell you've got. Our Hornets are 70s tech. Stiff. They can still kill so use them. A Cessna with a manual launch Sidewinder could take down an enemy plane. That'll do nicely. A Subaru Brumby ute with a TOW missile on the back of it can take out any tank in the world. Not very fashionable but who cares. Win. Yes B52s are slow, but they don't go in alone. Air attacks against defended targets are some of the most practiced and highly choreographed attacks known. Several hundred other planes would be used in support and it is worth it because B52s can carry huge amounts of weaponry. Dozens of cruise missiles or massive amounts of bombs. And they have a HUGE range. Typically enemy airfields are bombed to stop enemy aircraft taking off, known anti-air missiles sites and radars are bombed, any radar that comes up gets missiles, any missiles that do launch get countermeasures (or maybe shot down, not sure if this is possible yet), interceptors handle enemy aircraft, EW planes s p o o f (EDIT:auto censor) everything, all just to get the bombs on target. And that is only in the air. Comms facilities get bombed and jammed, command and control sites and headquarters get bombed, any site that might have any air defence capability gets bombed. There isn't a set way to win a war. You just keep swinging until the other guy can't swing back. Barfighting. If you want to stop the barfight then drive a bulldozer through the building. Sure everyone dies but the fight ends. Results count, not procedures, in war. From memory we acquired F-111s to bomb the shit out of Indonesia if it went full Commie on us! Back in the day I remember Senior Defence Personnel stating this fact in the media.
|
|
frostbite
VIP Member
Posts: 5,452
Likes: 6,972
Member is Online
|
Post by frostbite on Jul 29, 2020 16:44:54 GMT 10
Back in the day, Indonesia believed the Australian government wouldn't be stupid enough to spend a fortune on the F111 if we didn't have the nuclear payload for it to carry. They were wrong.
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Jul 30, 2020 8:23:44 GMT 10
The f111's were like the SR 71's. Even if the mission failed ... you looked f#cking awesome in the process. We should get a few Tu 160's from Russia. It'll help us to look awesome ... (note the dude standing in the engine inlet! - LOL!)
|
|
norseman
VIP Member
Practical is Tactical!
Posts: 2,149
Likes: 1,853
|
Post by norseman on Jul 30, 2020 11:45:45 GMT 10
Back in the day, Indonesia believed the Australian government wouldn't be stupid enough to spend a fortune on the F111 if we didn't have the nuclear payload for it to carry. They were wrong. We farked up, we bought the F111s but didn't buy the nukes to arm them which is the official version!
|
|
bug
Senior Member
Posts: 2,052
Likes: 1,857
|
Post by bug on Jul 30, 2020 14:00:30 GMT 10
Back in the day, Indonesia believed the Australian government wouldn't be stupid enough to spend a fortune on the F111 if we didn't have the nuclear payload for it to carry. They were wrong. Assuming the Australian government won't do something stupid when it comes to defence procurement is an interesting strategy.
|
|
Beno
Senior Member
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 1,399
Location: Northern Rivers
|
Post by Beno on Jul 30, 2020 17:06:10 GMT 10
yeah like taking nuclear generators out of subs and installing diesels to replace them.
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Jul 30, 2020 17:52:26 GMT 10
Back in the day, Indonesia believed the Australian government wouldn't be stupid enough to spend a fortune on the F111 if we didn't have the nuclear payload for it to carry. They were wrong. We farked up, we bought the F111s but didn't buy the nukes to arm them which is the official version! Any chance we do not have nukes in the same way Israel doesn't and south Africa didn't? And were our 111's optimised for maritime strike?
|
|
kelabar
Senior Member
Posts: 399
Likes: 469
|
Post by kelabar on Aug 1, 2020 11:53:58 GMT 10
Any chance we do not have nukes in the same way Israel doesn't and south Africa didn't? That would be very nice, here's hoping! But the Brits do! And were our 111's optimised for maritime strike? No idea. They were designed as a penetration bomber. Load them with nukes then they went in hell for leather low to the ground to the target. SAMs couldn't get them because they were so fast they were gone before the missiles could get at them. I don't think this would work now as air-to-air missiles are much better.
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Aug 1, 2020 14:41:36 GMT 10
I have a sketchy memory of reading our 111's were set up with weapons specific for attacking shipping. A sound concept, since sinking a troop ship is a lot more efficient than trying to kill troops that have made it ashore. Have you seen the stats on losses of US, ARVN and Aus aircraft in vietnam? Pretty sobering stuff. SAM's were bringing down everything from 19 X B52's to 528 X Phantoms and even a few f111's. Although the way USA used air power over there was weird too ... sticking to set flight paths over and over again. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War#USAF_fixed-wing
|
|
bug
Senior Member
Posts: 2,052
Likes: 1,857
|
Post by bug on Aug 1, 2020 15:34:58 GMT 10
In Vietnam we were fighting an enemy with decades of experience and a heap of backing. The communist world were using it as a test bed for their equipment. By contrast the CCP has no friends and no combat experience at all. They would be the 'away team' in every battle. I suspect things would go pretty awful for the CCP if they tried anything major. Perhaps they should stick to ramming small fishing boats with destroyers. It has worked for them so far.
|
|
kelabar
Senior Member
Posts: 399
Likes: 469
|
Post by kelabar on Aug 1, 2020 16:51:33 GMT 10
The Chinese did kick butt in the Korean War and they were up against veterans with years of combat experience. No easy task. But it was a land war for them so much easier. Overwater sucks.
Apparently the F-111s could carry Harpoon ASMs, so did have an anti-shipping ability. You may hear the term 'marinised' in defence terms. This just means the aircraft has a minimum of two engines and a higher level of corrosion resistance. Still the same aircraft though. And there may also be a lighter weight ASM out there that could be fired from the Orions. Nice!
I actually thought the aircraft losses in Vietnam were fairly light! Unless you talk about chopper losses. They were bad. The guys in the heavy-lift helicopters that went out to airlift the shot down choppers were so experienced it only took them minutes from landing to take-off to retrieve a chopper wreck! I have seen a picture, from Afghanistan I think, where a Chinook pilot has touched the rear wheels down on steep ground and held the aircraft steady in the air while wounded were loaded. Pretty incredible feat! Fighter jocks might think they are hot, but chopper pilots have the biggest balls!
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Aug 1, 2020 17:37:02 GMT 10
As in: the numbers as given you consider low? ... or ... they are higher than you first thought?
I'm well and truly in the latter category.
Half of all the Iraquois sent over there got shot down. As you say, a helicopter is a risky thing to be flying in over a battlefield. Same with F105 mach 2 strike. Almost half of the 833 manufactured were destroyed over vietnam. But then, they were the primary Wild Weasel variant for much of the war which meant attacking anything with a radar signal coming out of it, including the SAM launchers. Talk about a high risk occupation!
|
|