I was just screwing around with some of them 🙂

Glad to hear it.

Daniel
(who finds being equated to the worlds largest surviving marsupial carnivore to be rather less impressive in fact than it sounds)

And for good measure they will be able to refuel the F-111s as well. If the Brits were really interested, I’m sur Marshalls could fit a probe on the Globemaster without too much difficulty….they’re really pretty good at such things.

And the F-35A as well which is of course the intended future RAAF fighter.

And as Tinwing said there is a big difference between hiring someone elses planes and having ownership and responsibility for its maintenance yourself. I’m sure the RAAF has been impressed by the Condor, hence the reason we are now buying the C-17s. Still the RAAF has never operated the Condor.

Daniel

So we are talking about Iran AND US Navy but I can’t mention S-300…

Could you please be a bit clearer with thread rules… I read the first post that mentions nothing about Iran and just wants to discuss Cruise missile defence. Then you say we can’t mention S-300 because Iran has none. Now you say mention of US CVBGs is OK because they could be attacked by cruise missile… which is actually rubbish… cruise missiles are for fixed targets… and CVBGs move… that is why Sunburns, Granits, and Yakhonts are called anti ship missiles, though the latter will have a test flight of a land attack cruise missile version this year.

Well there do seem to have been a number of specific examples used here (Iran, US CVBGs, Russia) and it can be a little confusing at times following who was arguing about which particular scenario. Personally I believe that some sort of defined example is necessary for these sort of discussions so would just suggest folks remember to make clear about what they are responding to. Re cruise missiles, well by definition any missile with a sustainer motor is a cruise missile. Yes the term has become almost synonymous with the LACM but think about it, if that was the only interpretation then the term LACM would actually be redundant 🙂 Sematics can be quite fun at times.

And B-2s and F-117s never ever fly below TORs ceiling? Another poster mentioned that hiding in cloud cover might be a tactic they would use to avoid visual contact via IRST and starlight/moonlight. If such a tactic is used then TOR can engage the lower flying aircraft. Otherwise the medium SAM it is providing cover for can engage the higher flying targets if it has optical backup and a decent long wave TI.

When taken together as an air defence network compared to other complete networks there is even less to argue about.

Some of this comes back to just what scenario is under consideration. When considering an attack on a target locality covered by layered missile air defence with supported by AEW&C, interceptors and possibly some form of long range bistatic radar system then it would be reasonable to expect a low level ingress from even reduced RCS aircraft. Such a case puts them in the engagement envelope of such low-mid level systems as the TOR. Probably the only real examples of an opponent such as this would be the US, Russia, China, Europe/NATO and India.

On the other hand in the case of target such as Iran which lacks AEW&C, has missile defences more concentrated around just a few target areas and propably lacks sufficiently capable interceptors to properly cover the all the areas from which a standoff attack can be launched then I’d expect a continuation of the high-altitude tactics we are seeing now.

Still the bulk of this thread has well and trully departed from the original question which was pretty much answered within the first page 🙂 We now seem to be going over things that we can’t ever hope to answer definitively. Take the example of a US LACM attack on Chinese airbases defended by KJ-2000, ground radar systems, Flankers/J-10s/J-8IIs and ground based SAMs including S-300/HQ-9 types. The outcome would be influenced by a number of other factors outside the straight defence v LACM match up. Simple things like sunspots, weather, alert states/personnel fatigue or ancillary considerations like other operations that might mask the attack or the geography of the ingress route that could hinder/help one side or the other. An mechanical breakdown could take a critical part of the defence down at just the wrong time and could allow a strike through that would have failed otherwise. Even the professionals don’t know exactly how many birds will get through, hence the need to build fudge factors into any plan. Its fun to consider various possibilities but settle down folks and don’t so tied up in it that you start trying to present your view as the only correct one. There are just to many variables and too much that we don’t know about the specific’s of the systems we discuss. As the saying goes “no plan survives contact with the enemy” All the theory and marketing speil doesn’t really tell us what will happen when the bullets start flying for real.

Daniel

This still has nothing to do with Chinese carriers people. Perhaps a little moderator action called for. Lock the thread for a few days and let it settle. The whole China/Taiwan thing has been done more time than I care to remember, no one will be changing their opinions based on what goes on here.

Daniel

Do TNI Hinds actually have all those weapons listed in service with them now?

TNI Hinds themselves are barely in service, they only have two.

Daniel

I would say that is hearsay or just wishful thinking on your part. From my experience, most non-Asians wouldn’t know where Taiwan actually is. Many couldn’t even tell the difference between Chinese and Japanese even if you show them the passports, let alone a Chinese from Taiwanese.

A Chinese-American, Vincent Chin, was murdered in Detroit because two white auto workers, who kept calling him a “Jap”, thought he a Japanese who took their jobs. Those two didn’t really listen when he tried to explain he was a Chinese not a “jap.”

Lovely, got nothing to do with what was said though. Musashi wasn’t talking about talking about anyone doing a visual inspection of a person and then racially classifying them. He said that countries recognise a Taiwanese passport. Thats an official document that carries the name of the country of issue, in this case I gues that would be the Republic of China. Now I don’t if that is actually correct or not but I do know your response had bug*er all to do with his statement and this thread is well and truely off on a tangent that has bug*er all to do with aircraft carriers.

Daniel

Can anyone remember what the situation was with the transfer of Charlie class subs to the IN? Was there a fanfare or was it kept quiet?

Sorry not old enough to have been paying attention then. Still even if it turns out to have been kept strictly under wraps the world today is very different place. The US and India are bestest buds and to try and hide Akulas from you buddy might not go over to well (if it was even possible). Who really thinks India would forego bragging rights over China anyway:)

Daniel

Danrh,
Poland is building at least one Meko 100.
Slow, but there seems to be progress.

Cheers. Thanks for the link but I’m afraid that since bablefish doesn’t do Polish I have ask is the ship being built in Poland? Those A-100s are very nice ships.

Daniel