Forum: Program and politics

destroid wrote:

Conan wrote:

IF the JSF makes it into RAAF service before 2018 (unlikely) I'd suggest the JSOW C1 and later variants will provide the initial anti-ship capability with SDB and Laser JDAM providing back up capability. As seen here, not all anti-shipping strikes need to be conducted by missiles launched at stand-off ranges...

Seems to me you would need to find some very brave pilots willing to engage a modern warship from JDAM range.

For the LO advantage, the range of CIWS is so short I don't know that the reduced detection range would make a difference for it. By my understanding such sea skimming munitions are detected as soon as they come over the radar horizon, which is not terribly far away.

There's JDAM range and there's JDAM range... Very Happy

Some of our JDAM's are just a bit longer ranged than most out there...

Quote:

Promoting industry capability
While the primary purpose of the CTD Program is to examine the technology of Australian industry, there have been some examples of significant DSTO technology being developed in partnership with industry.

An example of DSTO-developed technology successfully licensed to industry and exploited under the CTD Program for mutual benefit is the Joint Direct Attack Munition – Extended Range (JDAM–ER) project.
The Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) is a tail kit that converts free-fall unguided bombs into precision-guided weapons. The tail section contains a GPS/INS guidance system that directs the JDAM bomb to the selected target.

Enabling the 500-pound JDAM-guided weapon to glide towards long-range targets is the JDAM–ER wing kit, developed by Hawker de Havilland under the auspices of the CTD Program and based on DSTO technology.

The range of the launch aircraft’s fire-and forget capability can be extended to in excess of 55 kilometres, allowing the JDAM–ER to launch at a safe distance from the target.

“After two successful demonstrations, first under the CTD Program and then under the new CTD Extension Program, the JDAM–ER is now being considered for final development for commercial production, which will lead to an operational product,” Mr Arnold said.

“The JDAM–ER Program is an excellent example of how DSTO-sourced technology can lead to ongoing collaborative activity and the development of an effective Defence product.” Through the CTD Program, DSTO played a significant role in creating jobs, especially in the high technology and advanced engineering areas. The Program provided good support for several high-technology companies.

http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/news/5784/

F-16.net Sponsor

Which is still well inside the range of heavy ship launched SAMs.

destroid wrote:

Which is still well inside the range of heavy ship launched SAMs.

And? It's not our primary or even secondary air-launched anti-ship capability. Not every ship you might want to strike from the air has heavy SAM's on-board, but there is still a necessity to remain outside of short/medium ranged systems at sea, just as there is on land. That's what this capability provides, plus it does so cheaply...

Not many Countries can afford the very high end SAM's needed to out-range this sort of weapon and even fewer can afford to launch as many of these high end SAM's as we can standoff JDAM's...

We bought 2500x JDAM kits in our initial JDAM acquisition during the Hornet upgrade project and more for the Super Hornets,

How many Countries have comparable inventories of SAM systems that out-range greater than 55k ranged JDAM's?

Few...

destroid wrote:

For the LO advantage, the range of CIWS is so short I don't know that the reduced detection range would make a difference for it. By my understanding such sea skimming munitions are detected as soon as they come over the radar horizon, which is not terribly far away.

Which is why E-2s are so important.

Name me one surface fleet in the region that could survive an attack by RAAF and the USN on its auxiliary fleet and home ports.

How big is the region of Oz? They've been off to fight in the Global War of Terror as of late.

http://www.defence.gov.au/op/afghanistan/index.htm

That is not a region... This is only the region WEST, The WIDE BLUE PACIFIC EAST is HUGE!!!!!!!!1

hcobb wrote:

How big is the region of Oz? They've been off to fight in the Global War of Terror as of late.

http://www.defence.gov.au/op/afghanistan/index.htm

It's hardly "of late". Australian Special Forces elements were on the ground in Afghanistan in November 2001...

So the big question is: Which minor Oz allies have facilities that can host the F-35B, but not the F-35A.

Quite a political statement can be made by visiting 5th gen fighters at a small island under threat.

hcobb, yes that is a big question indeed. I'm glad you thought of it.

Buy a few Bs and operate them from the Canberra class landing helicopter docks.

hcobb wrote:

So the big question is: Which minor Oz allies have facilities that can host the F-35B, but not the F-35A.

Quite a political statement can be made by visiting 5th gen fighters at a small island under threat.

Why is that such a big question? Which "minor oz ally" might require (presumably) "Oz" F-35b's (not that we are contemplating buying any, but nevermind) to be deployed to their lack of fixed runway lands and against what threat?

Is someone planning on invading some ally of Oz that is so small as to not even possess a runway able to operate a fighter aircraft and in response we are going to deploy STOVL fighters to er, protect them, expel the invaders, what exactly?

Big question? Idiotic question seems more like it.

destroid wrote:

Buy a few Bs and operate them from the Canberra class landing helicopter docks.

These are being bought because Australia requires the ability to launch surface and helicoter based amphibious assaults.

They are not being bought to provide mini-carriers.

Everyone here may not follow Australian TACAIR planning as much as some of us and fair enough (it already seems to attract a disproportionate amount of attention given the relative small scale of our military) but never once in any planning document ever released by the ADF has the purchase of a STOVL capable fighter EVER, even been contemplated.

RAAF is authorised to acquire 4 Squadrons of the SAME fighter. Not any other variant or type and considerable effort and signs will be observable if this planning is to change to accomodate or add another type or variant.

Such is not observable at present, beyond "wishlists"...

Australian armed forces are mainly used to advance Australian policies, not defend the homeland.

Taking a random example: East Timor

destroid wrote:

For the LO advantage, the range of CIWS is so short I don't know that the reduced detection range would make a difference for it. By my understanding such sea skimming munitions are detected as soon as they come over the radar horizon, which is not terribly far away.

The question is how well can the CIWS track the LO weapons, to engage.

Forum: Program and politics

Australia needs surface attack