http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/jsfs-submarines-still-in-governments-plans-20130503-2iwso.html
Should Australian be spending any money on manned Fighters and Submarines when they can all be easily destroyed by drone aircraft and drone submarines that only cost 10% of the price?
B52s with laser beams and water tanks
Geoff D said:
water tanks
Doubling as fire-fighting water-bombers?!
bourke said:
Geoff D said:
water tanks
Doubling as fire-fighting water-bombers?!
Dunno. Could be spa baths for the troops, I guess.
yes – to the question in the OP
Geoff D said:
bourke said:
Geoff D said:
water tanks
Doubling as fire-fighting water-bombers?!
Dunno. Could be spa baths for the troops, I guess.
Promotes ‘bonding’ I guess… might be to relaxed to stay awake for combat though!
party_pants said:
yes – to the question in the OP
And the obvious DVBL follow-up… why?!
bourke said:
party_pants said:
yes – to the question in the OP
And the obvious DVBL follow-up… why?!
Drones will have there own weaknesses and without a trained reserve of heads you have no front line
bourke said:
party_pants said:
yes – to the question in the OP
And the obvious DVBL follow-up… why?!
Drones will have their own weaknesses and without a trained reserve of heads you have no front line
bourke said:
party_pants said:
yes – to the question in the OP
And the obvious DVBL follow-up… why?!
I don’t see drones as being quite as sophisticated as that. They are more likely to remain a niche application than become the mainstay of our forces. Sure they’ll get better and more sophisticated in time, but in the meantime I don’t think they can match the versatility of manned machines. I think we should look at investing in drones of course, but not to the point of stopping purchase of manned machines. We should do both, and make the transition naturally as an when the technology matures. We should drop manned machines in the hope that drones will be developed soon.
party_pants said:
I don’t see drones as being quite as sophisticated as that. They are more likely to remain a niche application than become the mainstay of our forces. Sure they’ll get better and more sophisticated in time, but in the meantime I don’t think they can match the versatility of manned machines. I think we should look at investing in drones of course, but not to the point of stopping purchase of manned machines. We should do both, and make the transition naturally as an when the technology matures. We shouldn’t drop manned machines in the hope that drones will be developed soon.
Woops – left out the ‘nt.
party_pants said:
party_pants said:I don’t see drones as being quite as sophisticated as that. They are more likely to remain a niche application than become the mainstay of our forces. Sure they’ll get better and more sophisticated in time, but in the meantime I don’t think they can match the versatility of manned machines. I think we should look at investing in drones of course, but not to the point of stopping purchase of manned machines. We should do both, and make the transition naturally as an when the technology matures. We shouldn’t drop manned machines in the hope that drones will be developed soon.
Woops – left out the ‘nt.
wookiemeister said:
party_pants said:
party_pants said:I don’t see drones as being quite as sophisticated as that. They are more likely to remain a niche application than become the mainstay of our forces. Sure they’ll get better and more sophisticated in time, but in the meantime I don’t think they can match the versatility of manned machines. I think we should look at investing in drones of course, but not to the point of stopping purchase of manned machines. We should do both, and make the transition naturally as an when the technology matures. We shouldn’t drop manned machines in the hope that drones will be developed soon.
Woops – left out the ‘nt.
Freudian slip
No. Just an ordinary editing mistake. I wrote the sentence one way, then thought it would be better re-worded. In the re-wording process I forgot to change the word to the negative tense.
bourke said:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/jsfs-submarines-still-in-governments-plans-20130503-2iwso.htmlShould Australian be spending any money on manned Fighters and Submarines when they can all be easily destroyed by drone aircraft and drone submarines that only cost 10% of the price?
In a dogfight between a manned fighter and a drone, my money’s on the fighter.
pommiejohn said:
bourke said:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/jsfs-submarines-still-in-governments-plans-20130503-2iwso.htmlShould Australian be spending any money on manned Fighters and Submarines when they can all be easily destroyed by drone aircraft and drone submarines that only cost 10% of the price?
In a dogfight between a manned fighter and a drone, my money’s on the fighter.
pommiejohn said:
bourke said:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/jsfs-submarines-still-in-governments-plans-20130503-2iwso.htmlShould Australian be spending any money on manned Fighters and Submarines when they can all be easily destroyed by drone aircraft and drone submarines that only cost 10% of the price?
In a dogfight between a manned fighter and a drone, my money’s on the fighter.
If it was Tom Waterhouse offering the odds, both should turn around and attack him.
pommiejohn said:
In a dogfight between a manned fighter and a drone, my money’s on the fighter.
We’re not talking about totally autonomous drones. They’ll still have a pilot controlling their flight.
Drones – even if they could act autonomously – they still need some kind of sensors to see the world around them. Sensors which would be susceptible to jamming or counter-measures. If a human was controlling it remotely those sensors would still need be needed to send information to a human, which adds in a small but significant lag for information transfer. That lag could be enough to seal it’s fate against a manned machine on the spot making decisions in real real-time.
my approach for a standing army would be to get rid of the steyr and just use AK47s, they are much cheaper and you can get them from anywhere real cheap, you could ship them in from Africa or some wartorn area – this kills two birds with one stone, you remove weapons where they are causing harm and supplying your army for cheap.
the AK47 can be fitted with a scope to give some accuracy. the cleaning kit is more available.
the aircraft would be f-16s dotted around the coast
there would be no capacity to bomb other countries – its a pointless exercise anyway
a conventionally loaded icbm arsenal would be ready to go 24/7 – targets would be powerplants and othe rplaces to cause maximum convenience rather than deaths.
satellites would be around the globe
a drone army would be used for logistics, ie automated trucks and the like are used to ship materiel around the country up to the front line in the event of an invasion.
drones would be used to harry the standing army wherever it lands, again hitting things to cause maximum inconvenience. the whole head count strategy doesn’t work and just causes a lot of heartache.
drones would be used to disable ships trying to supply an invasion armada, don’t bother sinking . there is nothing more annoying than some rusting hulk rendered totally useless floating around on the high seas.
the other bonus is that the enemy is more likely to surrender than fight to the death knowing that you don’t shoot prisoners or torture them. once the food supplies get whacked they would more than likely just surrender than fight on
wookiemeister said:
my approach for a standing army would be to get rid of the steyr and just use AK47s, they are much cheaper and you can get them from anywhere real cheap, you could ship them in from Africa or some wartorn area – this kills two birds with one stone, you remove weapons where they are causing harm and supplying your army for cheap.the AK47 can be fitted with a scope to give some accuracy. the cleaning kit is more available.
the aircraft would be f-16s dotted around the coast
there would be no capacity to bomb other countries – its a pointless exercise anyway
a conventionally loaded icbm arsenal would be ready to go 24/7 – targets would be powerplants and othe rplaces to cause maximum convenience rather than deaths.
satellites would be around the globe
a drone army would be used for logistics, ie automated trucks and the like are used to ship materiel around the country up to the front line in the event of an invasion.
drones would be used to harry the standing army wherever it lands, again hitting things to cause maximum inconvenience. the whole head count strategy doesn’t work and just causes a lot of heartache.
drones would be used to disable ships trying to supply an invasion armada, don’t bother sinking . there is nothing more annoying than some rusting hulk rendered totally useless floating around on the high seas.
the other bonus is that the enemy is more likely to surrender than fight to the death knowing that you don’t shoot prisoners or torture them. once the food supplies get whacked they would more than likely just surrender than fight on
I’d quibble over a few points.
Since we already use the Austeyr we might as well stick with it. Changing would be a wasted additional cost.
My drone fleet would be skewed towards lots of one-way kamikazee-style bombers. Launched from airstips positioned around the continent. I’d build lots of airstrips, every mining camp and regional town would get a nice new sealed runway, which could double as a military base for launching drones.
Tranpsort connections would be by rail. Not as sophisticated as driverless trucks on open roads, but a crew of two could deliver hundreds of tonnes of supplies in one go with minimal accident rate. Rail network would be useful in peacetime too.
Fighter aircraft would be the latest and most sophisticated types to protect the large number of support aircraft for the drone fleet – radar planes and remote control stations, tankers, large freighters and the like.
party_pants said:
wookiemeister said:
my approach for a standing army would be to get rid of the steyr and just use AK47s, they are much cheaper and you can get them from anywhere real cheap, you could ship them in from Africa or some wartorn area – this kills two birds with one stone, you remove weapons where they are causing harm and supplying your army for cheap.the AK47 can be fitted with a scope to give some accuracy. the cleaning kit is more available.
the aircraft would be f-16s dotted around the coast
there would be no capacity to bomb other countries – its a pointless exercise anyway
a conventionally loaded icbm arsenal would be ready to go 24/7 – targets would be powerplants and othe rplaces to cause maximum convenience rather than deaths.
satellites would be around the globe
a drone army would be used for logistics, ie automated trucks and the like are used to ship materiel around the country up to the front line in the event of an invasion.
drones would be used to harry the standing army wherever it lands, again hitting things to cause maximum inconvenience. the whole head count strategy doesn’t work and just causes a lot of heartache.
drones would be used to disable ships trying to supply an invasion armada, don’t bother sinking . there is nothing more annoying than some rusting hulk rendered totally useless floating around on the high seas.
the other bonus is that the enemy is more likely to surrender than fight to the death knowing that you don’t shoot prisoners or torture them. once the food supplies get whacked they would more than likely just surrender than fight on
I’d quibble over a few points.
Since we already use the Austeyr we might as well stick with it. Changing would be a wasted additional cost.
My drone fleet would be skewed towards lots of one-way kamikazee-style bombers. Launched from airstips positioned around the continent. I’d build lots of airstrips, every mining camp and regional town would get a nice new sealed runway, which could double as a military base for launching drones.
Tranpsort connections would be by rail. Not as sophisticated as driverless trucks on open roads, but a crew of two could deliver hundreds of tonnes of supplies in one go with minimal accident rate. Rail network would be useful in peacetime too.
Fighter aircraft would be the latest and most sophisticated types to protect the large number of support aircraft for the drone fleet – radar planes and remote control stations, tankers, large freighters and the like.
when steyrs become broken, old etc you just replace it with a cheap AK47 and save money. the third world is awash with these things, you could pick up decent AKs for a song.
personally i’d use drones for recon, they just find the target and you use the ICBMs to deliver to somewhere in Australia , ie a high value target in the invasion zone fuel depot etc. satellites would be better for long range recon drones might only be able to fly so far. having the high ground to watch from is better. no runways needed. you knock out the logistics and the invading army grinds to halt – then the wet season starts
railways are just good targets. if they hit the rail yards its game over or one rail line in the middle of nowhere its hard to repair because its hard to get to. auto trucks that can sit up and move over rough country or roads seems a better option. the invasion of Australia will come as a surprise attack and you can bet rail infrastructure would go under quickly.
the enemy is more likely to capture assets rather than cities which over here are boned. once they ‘ve knocked out the powerstations the cities over here would just eat themselves alive as all the “cultures” turn on each other to achieve tribal supremacy. with such diverse number of “cultures” things will fall apart fairly quickly because no one is on the same page.
Australia only has a few petrol refineries so you can say goodbye to fuel supplies fairly quickly
in an attack the cities would have to be allowed to fend for themselves and a knock out blow to the logistics chain delivered. the f16s would be effective at stopping anything approaching which means no aerial supply or naval supply. the only friend you’d have is the wet season because all fighting would end and give you time to regroup. the next battle would be over supply issues. if you can stop the supplies then its game over for the army in the country.
you don’t aim to “win” the war
you aim to stop and stymie enemy advancement and cause too many questions to be raised about the validity of the war
in the age of the internet a huge standing army stranded and wounded would cause domestic crisis
years ago no one knew what was going on, if the internet had been around the germans would have known that Stalingrad and the war was a lost cause very quickly
Ah well. Each to their own line of thinking. Thankfully neither of us will ever be in charge.
party_pants said:
Ah well. Each to their own line of thinking. Thankfully neither of us will ever be in charge.
I look forward to the JSF
“Should Australian be spending any money on manned Fighters and Submarines when they can all be easily destroyed by drone aircraft and drone submarines that only cost 10% of the price?”
Also, what does the phrase “begging the question” mean?
dv said:
“Should Australian be spending any money on manned Fighters and Submarines when they can all be easily destroyed by drone aircraft and drone submarines that only cost 10% of the price?”Also, what does the phrase “begging the question” mean?
Why do you persist with obsolete phrases?
“Should Australian be spending any money on manned Fighters and Submarines when they can all be easily destroyed by drone aircraft and drone submarines that only cost 10% of the price?”
Also, what does the phrase “begging the question” mean?Why do you persist with obsolete phrases?
—-
Well now we’ve got three questions. This will be a great thread.
If we dispense with fighters and submarines entirely, we’ll be able to laugh at all those other countries spending zillions on such expensive hardware. Because if they attack us by sending in their fighters and submarines, they’ll find they have nothing to do, except return home looking silly & sheepish.
Subs have uses other than fighting other subs. They can attack surface craft, or even launch missiles. So they might not feel quite as silly as all that.
The fighters also tend to have a bit of air to ground armory, just in case.
dv said:
Subs have uses other than fighting other subs. They can attack surface craft, or even launch missiles. So they might not feel quite as silly as all that.The fighters also tend to have a bit of air to ground armory, just in case.
and the fighters are only there to protect the bombers.
dv said:
Subs have uses other than fighting other subs. They can attack surface craft, or even launch missiles. So they might not feel quite as silly as all that.The fighters also tend to have a bit of air to ground armory, just in case.
OK, so we dispense with armed naval vessels except for routine coastal police duties, and don’t bother with ground armies. What are they going to do now? Just zoom around looking dumb.
Bubblecar said:
If we dispense with fighters and submarines entirely, we’ll be able to laugh at all those other countries spending zillions on such expensive hardware. Because if they attack us by sending in their fighters and submarines, they’ll find they have nothing to do, except return home looking silly & sheepish.