|
|
Post by SA Hunter on Sept 8, 2020 23:10:28 GMT 10
Thinking over the possibility of a real shooting war in the South China Sea area and mainland Asia, here's the scenario;
You are the Defence Minister of Australia, and you have an open cheque book to buy any weaponry you see fit.
What do you buy? and Why?
(You are not bound by what country you can buy from either).
Once I get this damned data storage issue sorted, I'll post some pics too!
|
|
bug
Senior Member
Posts: 2,316
Likes: 1,934
|
Post by bug on Sept 9, 2020 9:12:09 GMT 10
Wouldn't be weaponry. It would be to replace all the CCP manufactured equipment that we are reliant upon. Huawei imbedded themselves in Telstra and essential services long before the 5G scandal. They did this by suppling equipment effectively for 'free' at the beginning.
|
|
doglover
Full Member
Prepping to make my way through this crazy world
Posts: 74
Likes: 111
|
Post by doglover on Sept 9, 2020 10:14:08 GMT 10
I would invest in prepping supplies over weaponry. The only winners in a war with China, Russia or the US are the ones that aren’t involved in it. Sitting on the sidelines seems more wise to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by SA Hunter on Sept 9, 2020 10:30:49 GMT 10
Unfortunately, for us, the sideline isn't an option. We have treaty obligations to uphold.
|
|
|
|
Post by SA Hunter on Sept 9, 2020 10:33:55 GMT 10
I'm going for the best that is currently out there; Aircraft: SU-35 fighter  |
|
|
|
Post by SA Hunter on Sept 9, 2020 11:43:47 GMT 10
Air Defence;  S-400 Surface to Air missiles. |
|
|
|
Post by SA Hunter on Sept 9, 2020 11:48:34 GMT 10
No 1 rated tank in the World:  nr.1 Leopard 2a7 tank from Germany. |
|
spatial
Senior Member
Posts: 2,396 
Likes: 1,560
|
Post by spatial on Sept 9, 2020 12:24:57 GMT 10
The only weapon Australia needs is a few thousand Nukes, plains and tanks against such overwhelming numbers has little value. Where does one place military hardware in a country with such large borders - there are toooo many targets to defend.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Sept 9, 2020 18:13:29 GMT 10
Nuclear subs with SSBM's Mix of nuclear and conventional warheads. Including nukes optimised to generate EMP.
+1 on S400 SAMS.
Shore based, mobile, long range anti shipping missiles.
A complete satellite system to run our own surveillance.
The best electronic signals jamming gear that money can buy.
Wouldn't worry about armoured vehicles. Or a surface navy beyond patrol boats for basic border protection.
Not even sure how useful jet fighters are any more. Good SAM systems seem to put them at risk?
|
|
|
|
Post by SA Hunter on Sept 9, 2020 19:10:21 GMT 10
Seawolf Class Submarines - lots & lots of them!  |
|
|
|
Post by SA Hunter on Sept 9, 2020 19:12:40 GMT 10
 AH-64D Apache Long Bow. |
|
|
|
Post by SA Hunter on Sept 9, 2020 19:15:03 GMT 10
Still will need land based weapons - yes we have a large area to defend, that's why land based sites of importance are to be protected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Sept 9, 2020 19:19:02 GMT 10
Subs, Ships, long range bombers, fighters, aircraft carriers, amphibian carriers/craft, AWACS aircraft, forward radar stations on remote islands all around the coast and neighbouring island chains such as Vanuatu etc, tanks, anti aircraft batteries all along the coast and also single units with javelins on various city roof tops and other critical infrastructure such as power/water stations, waaaay more military personnel - do away with the gender quota crap, nukes, support vehicles and supply lines, startup all the petrol refineries in Aust so we can support our own fuel manufacturing again, station more first response fighter aircraft in northern aust, give 3RAR their para wings back, ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Stealth on Sept 9, 2020 21:38:59 GMT 10
Subs, Ships, long range bombers, fighters, aircraft carriers, amphibian carriers/craft, AWACS aircraft, forward radar stations on remote islands all around the coast and neighbouring island chains such as Vanuatu etc, tanks, anti aircraft batteries all along the coast and also single units with javelins on various city roof tops and other critical infrastructure such as power/water stations, waaaay more military personnel - do away with the gender quota crap, nukes, support vehicles and supply lines, startup all the petrol refineries in Aust so we can support our own fuel manufacturing again, station more first response fighter aircraft in northern aust, give 3RAR their para wings back, ... This, bar nukes. That's money that could be better spent elsewhere. China has a well established "We don't nuke first" policy. It's that whole personal shame thing. You nuke them first, you give them the right (in their minds) to nuke you back without taking on the cultural shame. Us bombing up with them would definitely give China the excuse to increase the rhetoric though. No strategic value to that. And really there's no point owning nukes unless you plan to wipe the entire country off the face of the planet and shenanigans aside, no one wants that. There are still good people in that country. They shouldn't pay for their leadership's hubris. But nuking a (relatively) small area gives them that same leadership the go ahead to hit that big red button themselves, so I wouldn't bother with it. I think you're on the money about boots on ground/air/drink. One of our biggest disadvantages is we simply can't compete in numbers. But you boost up hiring and then you have to train them all, and quickly. We'd still be at a disadvantage because their numbers have been training for time whereas our new intakes would be delayed. Definitely still would need them, you'd just have to find ways to mitigate the training burden time. ABSOLUTELY more money into defence industry and primary industries. Our natural resources would definitely make any war by resource attrition pretty difficult for them. Fed fighters are feisty fighters. As for 3RARs wings... Not my circus, not my monkeys. Give me 30,000 rivets flying in loose formation and a mildly soggy snackbox and we'll talk  . |
|
spatial
Senior Member
Posts: 2,396
Likes: 1,560
|
Post by spatial on Sept 10, 2020 1:19:00 GMT 10
The future of warfare is drones. 100'000 armed drones to swarm the enemy.
|
|
Beno
Senior Member
Posts: 1,310
Likes: 1,433
Location: Northern Rivers
|
Post by Beno on Sept 10, 2020 8:12:41 GMT 10
I wish for world peace. Can’t we all just get along?  |
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Sept 10, 2020 8:14:05 GMT 10
Subs, Ships, long range bombers, fighters, aircraft carriers, amphibian carriers/craft, AWACS aircraft, forward radar stations on remote islands all around the coast and neighbouring island chains such as Vanuatu etc, tanks, anti aircraft batteries all along the coast and also single units with javelins on various city roof tops and other critical infrastructure such as power/water stations, waaaay more military personnel - do away with the gender quota crap, nukes, support vehicles and supply lines, startup all the petrol refineries in Aust so we can support our own fuel manufacturing again, station more first response fighter aircraft in northern aust, give 3RAR their para wings back, ... This, bar nukes. That's money that could be better spent elsewhere. China has a well established "We don't nuke first" policy. It's that whole personal shame thing. You nuke them first, you give them the right (in their minds) to nuke you back without taking on the cultural shame. Us bombing up with them would definitely give China the excuse to increase the rhetoric though. No strategic value to that. And really there's no point owning nukes unless you plan to wipe the entire country off the face of the planet and shenanigans aside, no one wants that. There are still good people in that country. They shouldn't pay for their leadership's hubris. But nuking a (relatively) small area gives them that same leadership the go ahead to hit that big red button themselves, so I wouldn't bother with it. I think you're on the money about boots on ground/air/drink. One of our biggest disadvantages is we simply can't compete in numbers. But you boost up hiring and then you have to train them all, and quickly. We'd still be at a disadvantage because their numbers have been training for time whereas our new intakes would be delayed. Definitely still would need them, you'd just have to find ways to mitigate the training burden time. ABSOLUTELY more money into defence industry and primary industries. Our natural resources would definitely make any war by resource attrition pretty difficult for them. Fed fighters are feisty fighters. As for 3RARs wings... Not my circus, not my monkeys. Give me 30,000 rivets flying in loose formation and a mildly soggy snackbox and we'll talk . Nukes are the weapon of choice for a tiny nation that wants to make invasion/occupation by much, much larger enemies so costly they won't risk it. A populous and strong enemy will not risk having a dozen of their biggest population centres razed, nationwide key infrastructure systems crippled, fall-out all over the place at home etc just to come over here to what? Take control of our iron ore and food produce ... which we sell to them anyway? But if all we have are conventional weapons, and they have the systems to prevent us using them to hurt them on their home soil. And they out number and out materiel us by a factor of 50+ to 1 ... they might just figure invasion IS worth doing. |
|
bug
Senior Member
Posts: 2,316
Likes: 1,934
|
Post by bug on Sept 10, 2020 9:17:03 GMT 10
This, bar nukes. That's money that could be better spent elsewhere. China has a well established "We don't nuke first" policy. It's that whole personal shame thing. You nuke them first, you give them the right (in their minds) to nuke you back without taking on the cultural shame. Us bombing up with them would definitely give China the excuse to increase the rhetoric though. No strategic value to that. And really there's no point owning nukes unless you plan to wipe the entire country off the face of the planet and shenanigans aside, no one wants that. There are still good people in that country. They shouldn't pay for their leadership's hubris. But nuking a (relatively) small area gives them that same leadership the go ahead to hit that big red button themselves, so I wouldn't bother with it. I think you're on the money about boots on ground/air/drink. One of our biggest disadvantages is we simply can't compete in numbers. But you boost up hiring and then you have to train them all, and quickly. We'd still be at a disadvantage because their numbers have been training for time whereas our new intakes would be delayed. Definitely still would need them, you'd just have to find ways to mitigate the training burden time. ABSOLUTELY more money into defence industry and primary industries. Our natural resources would definitely make any war by resource attrition pretty difficult for them. Fed fighters are feisty fighters. As for 3RARs wings... Not my circus, not my monkeys. Give me 30,000 rivets flying in loose formation and a mildly soggy snackbox and we'll talk . Nukes are the weapon of choice for a tiny nation that wants to make invasion/occupation by much, much larger enemies so costly they won't risk it. A populous and strong enemy will not risk having a dozen of their biggest population centres razed, nationwide key infrastructure systems crippled, fall-out all over the place at home etc just to come over here to what? Take control of our iron ore and food produce ... which we sell to them anyway? But if all we have are conventional weapons, and they have the systems to prevent us using them to hurt them on their home soil. And they out number and out materiel us by a factor of 50+ to 1 ... they might just figure invasion IS worth doing. Yep. There's no way that Australians would do a Vietnam style decades long insurgency to make any invader eventually leave. Our society is so fragmented that those who would fight would be quickly wiped out and the invaders would settle in. A 50-1 advantage would quickly roll over us and that would be it. |
|
|
|
Post by SA Hunter on Sept 10, 2020 22:50:06 GMT 10
May as well have the longest ranged ICBMs; R-36M / SS-18 SATAN  |
|
Morgo
Senior Member
Posts: 682
Likes: 662
|
Post by Morgo on Sept 28, 2020 12:24:08 GMT 10
Subs.
Given what Australia is and where we are we should have a fleet of modern subs.
Multi role subs that can be outfitted for hunting enemy subs/ships, for taking out air targets or long range land based targets. Nuclear ICBM capable for the general deterrence.
After that coastal anti air shield around the country. Anti missile/anti air craft capable as well as long range anti ship. Mobile units as well.
Our own oil refineries with greatly increased reserves and additional power stations, preferably hardened to resist electronic warfare.
|
|
.
