The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Don't buy in haste > Comments

Don't buy in haste : Comments

By Peter Coates, published 23/5/2008

There are plenty of Pentagon heavies with a Lockheed background who would like Australia to buy the F-35 in a hurry.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Bushranger71

NCW has naturally arisen from the concurrent availability of high quality sensors and high speed communications. Given the abhorrence of the western world to innocent victims in war, and the accompanying theory of proportional response, the accurate targeting of the enemy is a vital feature of modern warfare.

NCW has the potential to be a significant combat multiplier. Whilst it is true that we rely upon our allies for satellite communications, we also rely on them for a great deal of other material. Where would we get replacement FA18's? A great deal of our defense assets are supplied by our allies and we rely upon them heavily.

You say >>” naively based on a presumption that all aspects of data networking will remain secure”

Interception of communications is not a new phenomenon, however the new advances in digital technology are leading to better cryptography and security of communication. As you rightly point out the networking of AWD, AP-3C, AEWAC and MRTT will provide a fall back net, were we to lose satellite capability.

You say >>”AEW&C aircraft, aerial tankers and high flying ... aircraft are also now quite vulnerable...”

Yet surely you recognize that the measure/countermeasure is an age-old and ongoing process. Further, it is in assymetric warfare where the greatest benefit of high quality ISTAR can be found. NCW is a vital component in that capability. In asymmetric warfare long range ground fired anti-AEWAC type missiles are unlikely to be employed.

I take your point regarding the wedgetail crews and further note the problems the sub force are facing.

In a small defence force, combat multipliers are the only option open to provide a capable fighting force. NCW is one of those multipliers which give our forces an edge over our rivals in the region, and will assist us in asymmetric-warfare.

I would be interested to see the evidence to suggest the superiority of the global hawk over the wedgetail in terms of AEWAC and ISTAR capability. The Gobal Hawk obviously has the edge in terms of ‘time over target’ but its avionics suites aren’t comparable, are they?
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 11:12:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushranger 71 and Paul. L.

Looks as though you both know more about Network Centric Warfare and ISR than I do. So I can’t add much to what you both have said.

I assume you are aware of, or talking, to Dr Carlo Kopp who may be Australia’s No.1 expert in both of these areas. His relevant articles are at http://www.ausairpower.net/isr-ncw.html

Judging by severe man hour limitations/realities it may have been a mistake to buy 6 Wedgetails (or 6 Collins subs for that matter). If 6 rather than 4 were intentional perhaps the 2 surplus Collins and Wedgetails were factored in for use in wartime and to makeup any losses.

Four Global Hawks might be right though pilots may see such UAVs as career limiting developments. If pilots are remotely “flying” UAVs they cannot be credited with flight hours that would be valued/recognized by future airline employers. The ability of non pilot technicians to fly UAV’s is galling as well.

This is becoming particularly evident in Iraq and Afghanistan where USAF pilots ordered to spend most of their time “flying” Predator UAVs are increasingly spitting chips.

Boeing X-45

The Boeing X-45 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-45 may set the standard as a UAV strike aircraft alongside the F-22. The X-45 appears to be very much a naval initiative. Perhaps the necessarily higher pilot emphasis of the USAF explains the USAF’s lack of interest in this UAV. In 15 years the X-45 may have matured into a frontline aircraft. As the X-45 is Boeing Mr England, formerly of Lockheed, probably isn’t a fan.

................................

Hi GIBO

Spose you’ve heard of of NORFORCE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norforce and http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/A-very-special-kind-of-force-minds-the-north/2005/03/04/1109700672482.html

Seems to me that very fit gun clubbers and others with bush skills should push for more units within NORFORCE and join at least on a part-time basis.

Its far better to work within an established military framework – that way you are in a network to be able to call down devastating military infrastructure to destroy an enemy. Talking laser designators here, as well as traditional assault or sniper's rifles.

Regards

Peter Coate
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 12:38:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Paul L;

Some clarification of defence jargon for forum visitors. ‘Network centric warfare’ is just aggregation of data from multiple sensors via IT links to improve situational awareness. The misnomer ‘combat multiplier’ simply means increasing the effectiveness of a military system and ‘asymmetric warfare’ relates to smaller forces countering the capabilities of bigger guys.

Regarding military assistance from allies. Over-committed American forces have a much lessened capacity to supply replacement aircraft or whatever from existing resources; for example, the US Navy F-18 fleet has been flogged beyond economic refurbishment and sustainment of Super Hornet production perhaps influenced the recent Australian procurement decision. Many of Australia’s military assets are also unique hybrid versions not readily replaceable.

Only about half of 6 Wedgetail, 5 MRTT, 4 C-17 might be continuously available operationally due to their technical complexity and outsourced maintenance. Adequate Air Force aircrew manning of Wedgetail and MRTT also seems problematic. Any losses of aircraft may not be promptly restored and training of replacement aircrews would require at least 2 years lead time.

The Russians have developed very sophisticated powerful long-range radars and counter-measures capabilities, also air-launched 200 nautical mile range ‘AWACS Killer’ missiles which are all being marketed regionally – see http://www.ausairpower.net/index.html. Such capabilities could potentially hamper manned aircraft operations, but using unmanned aircraft like Global Hawk for surveillance would diminish aircrew loss risk.

Global Hawk can be equipped with preferred capabilities to cover all aspects of intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, reconnaissance (ISTAR) - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-4_Global_Hawk. Mission control can be exercised trans-globally via satellite or regionally via microwave data links to remote mobile control facilities. Global Hawk is designed to operate up to 65,000 feet with a 36 hour endurance enabling a very substantial and economical surveillance footprint whereas Wedgetail is design limited to operations below 41,000 feet with about 10 hours endurance. ADF AEW&C capability origination was very belated and seemingly did not adequately consider the emerging Global Hawk.

Minister Fitzgibbon recently opined that ‘off the shelf’ equipment acquisition or leasing of military hardware would be more cost-effective, perhaps with the Wedgetail project in mind
Posted by Bushranger 71, Thursday, 5 June 2008 2:32:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Gibo,

I am privileged to be associated with Dr. Carlo Kopp and others comprising a group of retired military bods with comprehensive operational and combat experience endeavouring to better inform the Government and Defence entities concerning air combat capabilities in particular. My own military background was flying transport, fighter, helicopter aircraft embracing involvement in Confrontation and 3 stints in Vietnam with a later decade employed in airline flight training roles on modern airliners.

RAAF pilot manning is pretty acute with one of the fighter squadrons principally staffed by experienced reservist pilots and the Air Force is fearful they will lose more pilots due to worldwide shortages in the airline industry. Aircrew who manned the B707 tanker/transport fleet, which was recently prematurely deactivated leaving a capability gap, will by now have been absorbed in other roles preceding introduction of the MRTT sometime downstream; so more aircrew (and technical) resources will have to be found from somewhere to man both MRTT and Wedgetail. Major defence projects are sanctioned by successive Federal Governments despite military manning limitations that will inevitably result in under-utilization of costly taxpayer-funded resources. Smoke and mirrors stuff!

Some RAAF pilots (now retired) operated unmanned aircraft like Jindivik and Meteors at Woomera a few decades back but that role was not career limiting and enjoyed by many. The ground based teams operating USAF Global Hawk and Predator unmanned aircraft involve minimal pilots to manage flight profiles and weapons delivery, but teams predominantly comprise other specialists to interpret and manage the data gathered by the sensors.

There is a huge reserve of retired former military warrior pilots around the world who could be recruited as reservists to operate UAVs, if there was no upper age limit for military service. Many of them are in their 70s/80s but still quite capable of instructing in airline or other flight simulators and none need any more flying hours in logbooks. Their wives would be delighted to get them out of their hair and have them earn some more money!
Posted by Bushranger 71, Thursday, 5 June 2008 4:29:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Pantagenet for the reference to Norforce.
Im really into a citizens home guard, larger than forces what we have available.
In truth... Im off in a really unusual branch of Christianity with visions and prophecies.
Since 1989 Ive collected about 14 mentions of an asian invader on Australian soil (appears to be Chinese) given to mostly really on-fire for Jesus christian believers...not so much to the big churches, but to smaller pastors and believers. Some actually ended up in book form like Pastor Jack Burrells "What will become of Australia" 1975 which speaks about half of the land conceded to the invaders. These were revelations from The Lord speaking mainly about the consequences of "national sin" and what God one day might just allow if christian revival tarries; and the people continue as they are. At times Ive deviated from this theme of an invader because of sin because I feel for the people in the northern part of Australia and I really believe if we are going to have a fight... let it be a fair fight. Lets be armed and equiped and not relying on a USA that may not come to Australias assistance.
For a truly fair fight we've simply got to have more manpower.
Thanks Bushranger 71 for your imput too.
This is an interesting article for sure.
Posted by Gibo, Thursday, 5 June 2008 8:29:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushranger71,

As you point out interception of military communications is a real threat, albeit not a new one. For an unmanned Global Hawk, surely all that is required to completely defeat this aircraft is an appropriate jammer that will prevent the aircraft from being flown remotely.

It seems to me that in Iraq and Afghanistan, manned AWAC aircraft are very useful. There is little real threat to them and they provide an invaluable asset. Even the AC130 spectre gunships are relatively safe in this type of warfare against non state actors.

In a high threat environment, doesn't an AWAC operate inside a CAP umbrella of safety anyway?

As for manning of these aicraft, is there not scope for these aircraft to be piloted by ex-service personnel like reserves, if all were needed? I don't really understand the RAAF buying aircraft that it doesn't believe it will be able to fly. Again, as you say, with maintenance requirements, only four out of a fleet of six would be available at any one time anyway.
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 6 June 2008 1:09:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy