Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Australia military build-up
Sounds odd. The Aussies have problems manning their current submarine fleet, how do they supposed to man the 12 new ones? The same dilemma stands when applied to the procurement of new surface fleet vessels and the airforce.
Speaking of military buildup....
I hear there is a shortage of ammo in the US. People are stockpiling ammo.
Sounds like the rednecks are pawning the wheels of their houses to buy more ammo.
> Han wrote:
> Speaking of military buildup....
I hear there is a shortage of ammo in the US. People are stockpiling ammo.
Sounds like the rednecks are pawning the wheels of their houses to buy more ammo.
Maybe. Or maybe people aren't so trusting of Mr. Obama's intentions. To date there has been no effort by Mr. Obama, beyond the highly publicized Guantanamo Bay closing and the end of torture (really, now?), to rescind the numerous pieces of unconstitutional legislature pressed into law by Mr. Bush.
Aren't you from China anyway? No surprise that you say this.
> buenl wrote:
> im happy for any country to become more powerful. i really hate US sticking their ass to every country's internal businesses and to tell them what is right and what is wrong. and please stop crying about chinese military budget. US is spending much much much higher any chinese government and so far all i see is US using their military power to push other countries around. yup you call that peaceful development............................how about kiss my ass? or and i forgot the most importatn point, "only US is allowed to build and spend shit load of cash on mililary".
and im happy that australia is building up military too. i dont care if australia is worried about china or not, as long as australia stop relying on US and kissing up US ass like that old fool john howard (however you spell his name, hate him that i dont even want to learn to type his name properly) did. i didnt hate bush as much as i hate howard..........................in fact i thought bush is pretty funny for the mistakes he made 
.
hahahaaha and i got some free cash from kevin rudd, off to spend it . to be honest i dont think cash bonus is going to boost economy that much. better off spending it somewher more useful.
Awww, isnt the little baby cute. QQing because his country is a failure compared to the US, dont worry, there kid, your women are whores and sell themselves cheap, so that we can provide them with a better lives then the shit ones, that was the best, your incompetent ancestors could provide you with; being complete failures.
Our airforces used to be pissed if the Axis only sent 4:1, it cut down on your chance of going ace
Sonar bouys. If they cost $1 million each you could get 32000 for the price of one of our hunter subs
they might cost 32B but they are only worth 32B Zimbabwe dollars
hmm I might be off, I think it may only be half that
> Chris_Balsz wrote:
> hmm I might be off, I think it may only be half that
Try for 2B. No one is going to realistically pay 32B for a hunter sub.
Yeah we would, indeed we would.
Waste of money. What we need is to build a larger air force, since our air force pretty much renders every army obsolete.
Until a groundforce takes over or demolishes your airfield(s). This can even be done via covert operations, instead of large bodies of men.
F-35 isn't suited for air defense tbh
a watered down version of the F-22 would work. Or better yet, sell the designs on the YF-23
> BiefstukFriet wrote:
> Until a groundforce takes over or demolishes your airfield(s). This can even be done via covert operations, instead of large bodies of men.
Yeah, because the tanks will simply drive up to the airfield without being bombed.
And it really depends what kind of men you are using for the covert. Spetz could do it, but I have trouble envisioning the Indonesian airborne or whatever they have pulling that off. The response teams for airfields are essentially SWAT teams, and therefore pretty good quality troops.
I can, without a doubt, get in range to destroy 2, maybe 3 aircraft before I am gunned down. I can guarantee I could do this.
I am not in shape, nor would I need support.
Any special forces can do it.
This is the problem with defense.
Defense alone is impossible.
Even in 2000 bc they knew this.
> EliteInternetWarrior wrote:
> F-35 isn't suited for air defense tbh
a watered down version of the F-22 would work. Or better yet, sell the designs on the YF-23
> BiefstukFriet wrote:
> Until a groundforce takes over or demolishes your airfield(s). This can even be done via covert operations, instead of large bodies of men.
Yeah, because the tanks will simply drive up to the airfield without being bombed.
And it really depends what kind of men you are using for the covert. Spetz could do it, but I have trouble envisioning the Indonesian airborne or whatever they have pulling that off. The response teams for airfields are essentially SWAT teams, and therefore pretty good quality troops.
Never said it was easy. But you can't expect your airfields to be 100% secure. Besides, how does one occupy and take over vital resource nodes or enemy military facilities with just airplanes.
> BiefstukFriet wrote:
> > EliteInternetWarrior wrote:
> F-35 isn't suited for air defense tbh
a watered down version of the F-22 would work. Or better yet, sell the designs on the YF-23
> BiefstukFriet wrote:
> Until a groundforce takes over or demolishes your airfield(s). This can even be done via covert operations, instead of large bodies of men.
Yeah, because the tanks will simply drive up to the airfield without being bombed.
And it really depends what kind of men you are using for the covert. Spetz could do it, but I have trouble envisioning the Indonesian airborne or whatever they have pulling that off. The response teams for airfields are essentially SWAT teams, and therefore pretty good quality troops.
Never said it was easy. But you can't expect your airfields to be 100% secure. Besides, how does one occupy and take over vital resource nodes or enemy military facilities with just airplanes.
You don't. Nukes or kinetics.
That only works if you want to destroy everything your enemy has. Which is not always the result that you want.
What if you want or need the resources of the enemy nation, to get to those resources efficiently you would need to keep atleast some key parts of the infrastructure intact, and to keep it secure from occupation and sabotage by enemy forces, you need ground forces.
Einstein,
hahaha. A helicopter maybe, but not a F-22. Those stingers the Taliban had were pretty useless huh?
Bief,
True. You need an army no doubt. But it's stupid to have a million army personnel and rely on them to occupy a country and fight opposing armies. Armies should be used to occupy strategic locations.
> BiefstukFriet wrote:
> That only works if you want to destroy everything your enemy has. Which is not always the result that you want.
What if you want or need the resources of the enemy nation, to get to those resources efficiently you would need to keep atleast some key parts of the infrastructure intact, and to keep it secure from occupation and sabotage by enemy forces, you need ground forces.
I don't mean big nukes. Satellites, tactical nukes, it doesn't matter. Hit vital places like their HQ, transportation and communication junctions, large bases. When you are done with that, use special forces to disrupt the elements that will respond to your beachhead most quickly.
That works to a certain level, until those locations are nearby the industry you need to capture, near urban centers or a combination of both. Now I am not opposed to nuking urban areas, but you just try to sell that to the people back home. Same goes for any use of tacticals for that matter.
"True. You need an army no doubt. But it's stupid to have a million army personnel and rely on them to occupy a country and fight opposing armies. Armies should be used to occupy strategic locations."
Another option would be to have a limited conscription, and use those conscripts for occupation. The volunteers could be the frontline fighters. This would mean an increase of the Army's size, instead of scaling it back. In reality, the US's armed forces, as far as land forces are concerned are too few in number if you wanted to occupy a nations and fight on multiple fronts.
Although I suppose it's size in this semi-peace time is oke, I don't see any conventional wars looming in the future.
> BiefstukFriet wrote:
> That works to a certain level, until those locations are nearby the industry you need to capture, near urban centers or a combination of both. Now I am not opposed to nuking urban areas, but you just try to sell that to the people back home. Same goes for any use of tacticals for that matter.
"True. You need an army no doubt. But it's stupid to have a million army personnel and rely on them to occupy a country and fight opposing armies. Armies should be used to occupy strategic locations."
Another option would be to have a limited conscription, and use those conscripts for occupation. The volunteers could be the frontline fighters. This would mean an increase of the Army's size, instead of scaling it back. In reality, the US's armed forces, as far as land forces are concerned are too few in number if you wanted to occupy a nations and fight on multiple fronts.
Although I suppose it's size in this semi-peace time is oke, I don't see any conventional wars looming in the future.
Now you're just throwing obstacles in my face in an attempt to look intelligent and 'tactical'. It doesn't matter what the [ ] it is, it can be even neutron weapons or bunker busters, there is almost always something for the job. The point is, you shouldn't sacrifice the mission for the sake of several billion dollars and collateral casualties. You can rebuild and kiss up later.
"Never said it was easy. But you can't expect your airfields to be 100% secure. Besides, how does one occupy and take over vital resource nodes or enemy military facilities with just airplanes."
well, nowadays, a western nation attacking another inorder to claim part or all of its land isnt feasible, there would be too much backlash. basically, the millitary has become a spanking paddle, and thats it. Saddum didnt let inspectors in, so Clinton spanked him with the millitary, he did it again with Bush, and Bush spanked him. On offense, you dont need to occupy their land to spank them. Ground forces is mainly used to minimize collateral damage, and then theres special forces that help planes hit targets.
> avogadro wrote:
> "Never said it was easy. But you can't expect your airfields to be 100% secure. Besides, how does one occupy and take over vital resource nodes or enemy military facilities with just airplanes."
well, nowadays, a western nation attacking another inorder to claim part or all of its land isnt feasible, there would be too much backlash. basically, the millitary has become a spanking paddle, and thats it. Saddum didnt let inspectors in, so Clinton spanked him with the millitary, he did it again with Bush, and Bush spanked him. On offense, you dont need to occupy their land to spank them. Ground forces is mainly used to minimize collateral damage, and then theres special forces that help planes hit targets.
That is correct. However, we are already at the point where the use of tactical nukes is being theorised, which I think would create a similar backlash, so I overlooked that small detail. 
Justinian... The new fighters they are making are made with CarbonFiber, aka Carbon NanoFiber materials. Their skin is stronger than Diamonds for a inch to inch comparison.
I could not dent a new fighter with a Tow Missile I expect. A depleted Uranium Penetrator yes... a RPG = no.
However you would be surprised at how effective a very sticky substance in the air intakes, if pushed in deep enough, would be at rendering the new fighters inert for a day or two. Also while the wheels are non-deflating types, they do get broken apart rather easily, and need a new one if you wish to take off.
Additionally if you can gain access to the cockpit the damage you can do to instrumentation would be interesting.
Finally the last resort, and the one I am thinking of, is to use some boxes designed to close around the landing gear, lock, and then be untamperable without exploding... and yet be strong enough to keep the landing gear from folding up. Hopefully they did not make the landing gear out of the CarbonFiber material, if so, then they are SOL until they can obtain new parts. Plus the time it takes for them to actually accept taking the damage, and then repairing it... Priceless...
Now an alternative idea would be to sufficiently crater a runway to prevent take offs. It would take a very large bomb to do a good crater, say 10 tons per bomb. Since I think an average semi can at most take (on a flat bed) 8 of those bombs, you could in theory drive on to an airport with bombs set to roll off and explode when triggered. However given the size of most air guard and air force runway locations this would mean probably 20 such trucks to render the runway null enough to stop operations. Fortunately also the problem for such an attack is that combat repairs need not be 'perfect'. Throw gravel into the holes, and then sheet metal on top, it will work, but require a few personnel per hole to keep moving the metal back into place, and a vehicle able to move the metal, with cables and the likes also... But the fighters can then fly.
The most sophisticated attack with needs for only a few hours determent of air flights would be to literally flip all the aircraft over... But you would need to be prepared to do that in advance per runway...
Imperial Forum → Politics → Australia military build-up
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.