RiainoI think a lot of these sorts of conclusions were made in that brief period when missiles weren’t good enough to be much more than a complement to guns, they quickly became less relevant as missiles gained range, guidance sensitivity and the rest.
RiainoIn a tight budget climate defence forces have to retain what is hard to acquire such as the big heavy stuff and ditch what is both easy/fast to acquire and able to be done as a secondary duty by the big heavy stuff.
There are handfuls of low end transports, dozens of small/medium UAVs and plenty of low end tactical strike aircraft in the world today. Acquiring them isn’t particularly expensive, difficult or time consuming.
In contrast there are exactly 2 types of 5th Generation fighter in service in the world today and perhaps 5 4.5 generation, each with prolonged and expensive development programmes.
The upshot is that while an F22 can drop bombs on tribesmen an AC27J cannot go head to head with an Su30 or A400 SAM.
RiainoAs stated I’d rather spend the money assigned for token tank force on more F-35s or CH-47s or patrol boats or frigates or whatever.
The Capability Development Group decided that the money should be spent on a tank force, and they have access to all the relevant information.
RiainoSince we have usually only maintained 2 active tank squadrons in 1st Armoured Regiment having 120 and 90 gun tanks was wasteful and 59 M1s is merely acceptance of this 55 year old fact. So despite owning 120 Centurions were only rotated 58 through Vietnam to keep 26 on strength with 1ATF. This is almost exactly how many M1s we own, what a coincidence!
As for willingness to deploy them in warzones, the government bought them reason, and when the situation arises where tanks are needed they will be sent. Such a situation hasn’t arisen since 1971, but then again we had F111s for 37 years and they never dropped a bomb in anger.
RiainoNot only that but it also maintains a cadre that we could expand on if the circumstances warranted it. While it only takes months to get a batch of tanks delivered in an emergency, Warrant Officers, Majors and Lt Colonels with years of tank experience are much harder to come by and impossible to create from scratch in an emergency.
RiainoExactly, in Vietnam one of Australia’s most successful tank actions was the Battle of Binh Ba where a handful of tanks fought alongside 2 infantry companies in a solid brick and tile town. In today’s “everything old is new again” combat environment this sort of lesson is highly relevant.
RiainoBy that logic the USMC is also wasting their time with the small numbers of tanks that they deploy with the MEUs and MEBs. It also implies that the Centurion squadron deployed in Vietnam were not used in a meaningful manner.
Blitzkrieg sweeps across vast distances by divisions and corps are not the only way to use tanks, they have utility in a large array of situations, hence the reason the ADF maintains this core capability.
RiainoHeavy weapons capabilities were stood-to for Timor but not required, a few light infantry actions were enough there.
I find the attitude that M1s are useless and will never be deployed, in an era which saw Australia lead an intervention into Indonesian territory, 9/11, Bali bombing etc., to be a touch optimistic at best and short sighted at worst. If we didn’t foresee 9/11 and Timor what else will we not foresee before the M1 runs out of life.
Again, the M1 was procured as part of a larger programme to harden and network the army, it provides a tip of the spear capability that if we need it we’ll really need it. I doubt Army planners will get caught short without tanks in a combat situation like they did in 1966-67.
RiainoI want to know what happens when Australia is required to deploy to a combat zone without the US, what will the tank crews use then?
RiainoThe purchase of the 59 M1 was part of the ‘Hardened and Networked Army’ programme which also saw the 6-wheel Land rover type troop carrying vehicles replaced by Bushmasters and was also going to include a regiment of SP howitzers until they were cancelled. They weren’t bought on a whim to impress someone or other, they serve a small but important niche in the ADF force structure for close combat with a well-armed enemy.
RiainoWhat about when processing technology becomes powerful enough to link a dozen fighter radars several miles apart and create a virtual array, something that’s already been done outside of real-time with telescopes.
The USN has been able to do that for a decade with ageis radars systems, the F35 will bring that to fighters. In fact the most awesome things the F35 will do is the stuff the pilot doesn’t know about has he flies his mission, the RAAF is really looking forward to that part of the F35 envelope.
RiainoJust a word on stealth and radar ‘band’, I don’t like this talk of bands, I prefer to measure radar wavelength with number so it makes sense to my stupid, non-engineer, brain. There are basically 4 radar wavelengths; metre (British chain home and OTHB), decimetre (seetakt and Wurzburg), centimetre (everything pretty much) and millimetre (apache longbow). Modern stealth is designed to scatter/absorb radar reflections in the centimetre wavelengths so that the emitting radar gets such a bad return that the signal processing thinks it has nothing has come back. It uses this technique because the vast, vast majority of radars in the world today are centimetre wave so this works a treat until the target is so close that the scattered reflections create an actual track can be creating, this is about sidewinder range.
The upshot is that older radars that use longer wavelengths can track stealth targets within the poor accuracy of their system limits. The Australian Jindalee system can conceivably put a fighter within 10km of a stealth bomber, but what it’s going to do when it gets there in the middle of the night is anybody’s guess.
This is where sensor fusion come into play; a dodgy track from the ESSM, another from the radar and another from the IRST can be fused into a workable track to get the fighter into attack position. Sensor fusion is what is delaying the F35, for those who actually are interested.
RiainoTo suggest that Australia spend nothing on defence and spend that money on welfare strikes me as being more patronising than suggesting that India doesn’t need an SSN.
While Australia doesn’t have ‘natural enemies’ like India does we do inhabit a region which has seen its share of strife and fighting within my lifetime, and considerably more before I was born. In a chaotic environment there is nothing wrong with Australia equipping itself with the military tools to ensure that such strife and fighting does not cause too much damage to Australia and Australian interests.
RiainoSo Australian defence capability against threats that are trivial, even if those posed by China, is justifiable, but an SSN capability that India fosters to develop a submarine based nuclear deterrant capability is a prestige program? That too when India and China have gone to war against each other and continue to have a border that neither can agree on?
I know you were not the poster that made this assinine assertion, but the sheer patronising nature of such a comment made me talk about who really faces a threat and who doesnt and who’s really pretending versus who faces a genuine threat. India is not under any nuke umbrella and will do what it feels it needs to be able to deter a nuclear enemy.
No, it wasn’t me. Personally I think India could make good use of an SSN arm as it is more of a natural sea power than China is.
RiainoIts Australia that’s pretending. When they have the US to cover their asses, why pretend to be a nation that needs any serious conventional capability? THey’re a poodle of the US anyway. Dont tell me they’re so scared that the Indonesians are going to invade them and take them over or that China is the threat? China would whack them if there ever was a serious dispute, and Australia would go running to their real protectors, the US.
And whats this retarded rubbish about SSKs being prestige programs for India? Since when did diesel subs become prestige programs? 😀
Anyway, India will defend its seas air and land on its own, not ask someone else to do our job or cover our asses when the going gets too tough, thank you very much. Neither are SSNs prestige programs. The first SSN the INS Chakra was leased from the USSR to give the IN a good training vessel that would help build nuclear sub operations experience. All of which was to build towards an eventual SSBN that was being developed. Once again, unlike Australia, India has to have its own deterrant and the SSN leased is vital to that requirement.
Talk about pretence! WHen was the last time Australia went to war over a problem of its own instead of sending a handful of troops to show that it was a worthwhile ally?
Australia’s defence policy is to defend itself without relying on the combat power of other countries, and looking at the capabilities in the region I’d say that is more or less being achieved. I doubt China has the power projection capability to mix it up with the ADF in East Timor, PNG, mainland Australia area with any great chance of success. They could probably have a go, but the expedition would most likely be badly mauled in the process.
As for leading a military operation, Australia led the intervention in East Timor in 1999. Not a hot war, but cool heads prevailed in the crisis and few shots were fired. Coincidently East Timor is about as far from Australia as Taiwan is from China.
Sign In
