How far would this sum go were it spent on education? We “DON’T” have a defense crisis that requires better jets. We do have growing issues with education. Queensland is putting effort into providing cert iii (or higher) qualifications. Cert iii courses are questionable in what they provide the recipient in terms of meaningful knowledge and mostly address OH&S concerns. It would seem more intelligent to provide the information in these courses to high-schoolers as OH&S should be a basic tenet of education and a responsibility of the community to provide to the individual. The average individual should have a functional comprehension of this level of information and the fact that this is what the education system has to offer speaks volumes in terms of how the public is viewed by those who regulate the system.

Is there any viability to the concept of private/self education? Could the cost of the more significant qualifications be brought down with a system that shared information in a meaningful manner?

Postpocelipse said:

How far would this sum go were it spent on education? We “DON’T” have a defense crisis that requires better jets. We do have growing issues with education. Queensland is putting effort into providing cert iii (or higher) qualifications. Cert iii courses are questionable in what they provide the recipient in terms of meaningful knowledge and mostly address OH&S concerns. It would seem more intelligent to provide the information in these courses to high-schoolers as OH&S should be a basic tenet of education and a responsibility of the community to provide to the individual. The average individual should have a functional comprehension of this level of information and the fact that this is what the education system has to offer speaks volumes in terms of how the public is viewed by those who regulate the system.

Is there any viability to the concept of private/self education? Could the cost of the more significant qualifications be brought down with a system that shared information in a meaningful manner?

This is not new money, this money was set aside by previous governments for this purpose.
It’s for the defence of the realm, the defence of our freedom so that you and I and our children and our children’s children and their children and working families can participate in threads like this.

For instance, a particular Cert iii in Warehousing I am aware of has managed to compress “6 weeks” of material into a 5 day course. This suggests to me that the original course was designed to be profitable and that 5 days is the real measure of how much information is provided.

Education is a means to the end as far as profitability goes. It doesn’t make sense to me that ‘educators’ should expect to make easy money off those on the bottom of the heap……

Peak Warming Man said:

This is not new money, this money was set aside by previous governments for this purpose.
It’s for the defence of the realm, the defence of our freedom so that you and I and our children and our children’s children and their children and working families can participate in threads like this.

It’s “Giant Dork” money! We’d do fine with our handful of F-18’s until there were a genuinely meaningful option available. I won’t even go into how questionable it is committing to these F-35s. I would contend that the expenditure doesn’t improve the public’s standard of living and that less and less seems to be addressed to that particular issue……

>>>This is not new money, this money was set aside by previous governments for this purpose.

How much money was side aside by previous governments?

Peak Warming Man said:

Is there any viability to the concept of private/self education? Could the cost of the more significant qualifications be brought down with a system that shared information in a meaningful manner?

This is not new money, this money was set aside by previous governments for this purpose.

You fell for Tony Abbott’s speech too then?

they would have been better off buying the F16 for true defence capability

the F18s are really being used as a fighter bomber role

having a small ICBM with conventional warheads would be incredibly useful, if it could be transported around like SCUDs it would save a fortune and be more effective – no costs associated with running bases. the things would just trundle around / camouflage up. in the event of a war the SCUDs would be pointed at the enemy’s power units knocking out huge swathes of the power system , stymieing any further potential attack / invasion

in the event of an invasion the F18s would be used to launch air to sea missiles to knock out and harass naval forces

ICBMs would be used to take down carrier groups with FAB bursts that would kill many of the crew on the deck and inside the ships, not to mention knocking fragile/ complex components

the fighting falcons would take on the potential fighter bombers that could attack civilian infrastructure. being faster and more manoeuvrable they would be a formidable aerial defence

where the new fighter bomber fits in I don’t know, anyway its too late its like seasprite of steroids

..trust wookie to miss the point of the thread!! :P

all you really need to do is make sure you have plenty of surface to air missiles and plenty of anti tank missiles

in any invasion the beach head becomes a swarming hornets nest of sea skimming missiles and SAMs, don’t bother with machine gun fire its a waste of man power and money. cripple the naval invasion by doing some damage to the ships and the logistics of an invasion become costly.

after doing some serious damage you do as much damage to an army attempting to secure a base on the land

you fall back and lead them to secure a base at an ambush site where you uncover some artillery pieces far in land and basically wipe out the invading army.

the trick then is to use the subs to cut off any retreating naval force using them to sink the major toys and use the F18s to strafe the smaller ships that are now on the open sea with no air cover.

Don’t know why we just don’t buy the kick-arse Russian planes with Israeli avionics like the Indians.

Ian said:

Don’t know why we just don’t buy the kick-arse Russian planes with Israeli avionics like the Indians.

Didn’t know about the Israeli avionics. Which plane is that?

wookiemeister said:

all you really need to do is make sure you have plenty of surface to air missiles and plenty of anti tank missiles

in any invasion the beach head becomes a swarming hornets nest of sea skimming missiles and SAMs, don’t bother with machine gun fire its a waste of man power and money. cripple the naval invasion by doing some damage to the ships and the logistics of an invasion become costly.

after doing some serious damage you do as much damage to an army attempting to secure a base on the land

you fall back and lead them to secure a base at an ambush site where you uncover some artillery pieces far in land and basically wipe out the invading army.

the trick then is to use the subs to cut off any retreating naval force using them to sink the major toys and use the F18s to strafe the smaller ships that are now on the open sea with no air cover.

You make it sound so simple.

Ian said:

Don’t know why we just don’t buy the kick-arse Russian planes with Israeli avionics like the Indians.

Israeli avionics will have back doors to them built into them by the Israelis who would switch them off when it pleased them or be used to spy on our own defence systems.

this is what stuffed up the argentines with their air to air missiles, the british had the shut down codes

Skunkworks said:

You make it sound so simple.

and provides meaningless information where the thread was aimed at defining meaningful expenditure on education and other community based efforts……

Skunkworks said:

wookiemeister said:

all you really need to do is make sure you have plenty of surface to air missiles and plenty of anti tank missiles

in any invasion the beach head becomes a swarming hornets nest of sea skimming missiles and SAMs, don’t bother with machine gun fire its a waste of man power and money. cripple the naval invasion by doing some damage to the ships and the logistics of an invasion become costly.

after doing some serious damage you do as much damage to an army attempting to secure a base on the land

you fall back and lead them to secure a base at an ambush site where you uncover some artillery pieces far in land and basically wipe out the invading army.

the trick then is to use the subs to cut off any retreating naval force using them to sink the major toys and use the F18s to strafe the smaller ships that are now on the open sea with no air cover.

You make it sound so simple.

it is simple

in the face of an overwhelming adversary you need to create a thick fog of war of crippled tanks, apcs, ships and an aircraft

surface to surface missiles can be carried by infantry , you pump out a few thousand at the enemy and create confusion and ongoing damage

when you move back you fall back with an ongoing volley of ambushes and damage

Witty Rejoinder said:

Ian said:

Don’t know why we just don’t buy the kick-arse Russian planes with Israeli avionics like the Indians.

Didn’t know about the Israeli avionics. Which plane is that?

SU 27

>>you fall back and lead them to secure a base at an ambush site where you uncover some artillery pieces far in land

Yes yes, lead them into the mountains, lead them right onto a strongpoint, in the mountains.

Postpocelipse said:

Skunkworks said:

You make it sound so simple.

and provides meaningless information where the thread was aimed at defining meaningful expenditure on education and other community based efforts……

bahhh don’t you get it?

its all bullshit

why would you bother invading this place when you can buy this place and rape the tax payer to support your purchase

I laugh when I read all this guff

Australia doesn’t need a credible military , that’s what ANZUS is about. considering that Australia has never won any military conflict since perhaps Malaysia I don’t see exactly what the fuss is all about.

just enjoy the ride

Peak Warming Man said:

>>you fall back and lead them to secure a base at an ambush site where you uncover some artillery pieces far in land

Yes yes, lead them into the mountains, lead them right onto a strongpoint, in the mountains.

with tasty breadcrumbs make by the MKR then you’ll hit them with the guacamole excellent thinking PWM

wookiemeister said:

Postpocelipse said:

Skunkworks said:

You make it sound so simple.

and provides meaningless information where the thread was aimed at defining meaningful expenditure on education and other community based efforts……

bahhh don’t you get it?

its all bullshit

why would you bother invading this place when you can buy this place and rape the tax payer to support your purchase

I laugh when I read all this guff

Australia doesn’t need a credible military , that’s what ANZUS is about. considering that Australia has never won any military conflict since perhaps Malaysia I don’t see exactly what the fuss is all about.

just enjoy the ride

You see Australia is different, our nation was not born out of blood like so many others, it was born out of conciliation, we’ve never had internal conflict apart from the State of Origin.

Peak Warming Man said:

wookiemeister said:

Postpocelipse said:

and provides meaningless information where the thread was aimed at defining meaningful expenditure on education and other community based efforts……

bahhh don’t you get it?

its all bullshit

why would you bother invading this place when you can buy this place and rape the tax payer to support your purchase

I laugh when I read all this guff

Australia doesn’t need a credible military , that’s what ANZUS is about. considering that Australia has never won any military conflict since perhaps Malaysia I don’t see exactly what the fuss is all about.

just enjoy the ride

You see Australia is different, our nation was not born out of blood like so many others, it was born out of conciliation, we’ve never had internal conflict apart from the State of Origin.

I take it you don’t visit the pub very much

I thought Australia was forged by the WW1 where the diggers and banana1 and 2 fought for the right of government to hijack their memory to justify every doomed venture imaginable and paid for the tax payer?

Postpocelipse said:

and provides meaningless information where the thread was aimed at defining meaningful expenditure on education and other community based efforts……

OK, in 2009 Public spending on education; total (% of GDP) in Australia was last measured at 5.11%

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/public-spending-on-education-total-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html

The Defense budget comes in at around 1.9%.

Australia never had the history of the feudal system, Australia was originally a dumping ground for convicts and the irish and the odd trade union man – the blokes who started trade unions in Britain were actually originally sentenced to death and the sentence was commuted to transportation to Australia.

as history goes everything is rolling along as normal

initially you have the monarchy

the monarchy is then overthrown by the middle class – in this case a constitutional monarchy

then the republic is declared

the middle class then fight it out for a few centuries whittling out the weaker of the middle class until you have the elite and a huge underclass and a large army.

whats left of the middle class finally knock each other off and the emperor and empire is declared

that’s how things seem to play out

france/ Athens/ Sparta/ America/ Russia/ china

do you think chairman mao was born into the family of some half arsed peasant for example?

the revolutionary class are always the middle class – marx got it wrong

sibeen said:

Postpocelipse said:

and provides meaningless information where the thread was aimed at defining meaningful expenditure on education and other community based efforts……

OK, in 2009 Public spending on education; total (% of GDP) in Australia was last measured at 5.11%

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/public-spending-on-education-total-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html

The Defense budget comes in at around 1.9%.

thanks for those numbers sibeen. Looks like it is more economical to buy things than it is to provide knowledge and competency huh…..

Postpocelipse said:

sibeen said:

Postpocelipse said:

and provides meaningless information where the thread was aimed at defining meaningful expenditure on education and other community based efforts……

OK, in 2009 Public spending on education; total (% of GDP) in Australia was last measured at 5.11%

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/public-spending-on-education-total-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html

The Defense budget comes in at around 1.9%.

thanks for those numbers sibeen. Looks like it is more economical to buy things than it is to provide knowledge and competency huh…..

Not exactly, the majority if Defense spending is actually on providing knowledge and competency. Big ticket items like planes and subs actually only come in as a fairly smallish proportion of the total budget, albeit it a very important part.

Be very, very friendly, and carry a big stick :)

sibeen said:

Postpocelipse said:

sibeen said:

OK, in 2009 Public spending on education; total (% of GDP) in Australia was last measured at 5.11%

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/public-spending-on-education-total-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html

The Defense budget comes in at around 1.9%.

thanks for those numbers sibeen. Looks like it is more economical to buy things than it is to provide knowledge and competency huh…..

Not exactly, the majority if Defense spending is actually on providing knowledge and competency. Big ticket items like planes and subs actually only come in as a fairly smallish proportion of the total budget, albeit it a very important part.

Be very, very friendly, and carry a big stick :)

ok. so its more economical to teach strategic destruction and intimidation than find broad scale prosperity…..

Postpocelipse said:

sibeen said:

Postpocelipse said:

thanks for those numbers sibeen. Looks like it is more economical to buy things than it is to provide knowledge and competency huh…..

Not exactly, the majority if Defense spending is actually on providing knowledge and competency. Big ticket items like planes and subs actually only come in as a fairly smallish proportion of the total budget, albeit it a very important part.

Be very, very friendly, and carry a big stick :)

ok. so its more economical to teach strategic destruction and intimidation than find broad scale prosperity…..

Obviously not. Australia spends far more on education than it does on Defense. That’s why I provided the figures.

Postpocelipse said:

sibeen said:

Postpocelipse said:

thanks for those numbers sibeen. Looks like it is more economical to buy things than it is to provide knowledge and competency huh…..

Not exactly, the majority if Defense spending is actually on providing knowledge and competency. Big ticket items like planes and subs actually only come in as a fairly smallish proportion of the total budget, albeit it a very important part.

Be very, very friendly, and carry a big stick :)

ok. so its more economical to teach strategic destruction and intimidation than find broad scale prosperity…..

“Let us imagine how many people would die if war breaks out. There are 2.7 billion people in the world, and a third could be lost. If it is a little higher, it could be half … I say that if the worst came to the worst and one-half dies, there will still be one-half left, but imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist. After a few years there would be 2.7 billion people again”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong#The_Long_March:_1934.E2.80.931935

Richard Branson’s take

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezr5_vae1CE

We Sail the Oceans Blue – HMS Pinafore

all this talk about the military has made me hungry and thirsty for some gilbert and sullivan

wookiemeister said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezr5_vae1CE

We Sail the Oceans Blue – HMS Pinafore

all this talk about the military has made me hungry and thirsty for some gilbert and sullivan

its a little known fact but this is the official theme song of the Australian navy

wookiemeister said:

wookiemeister said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezr5_vae1CE

We Sail the Oceans Blue – HMS Pinafore

all this talk about the military has made me hungry and thirsty for some gilbert and sullivan

its a little known fact but this is the official theme song of the Australian navy

Perfect record: still wrong.

Our official march is “Royal Australian Navy”; it used to be “Heart of Oak”.

maybe with all the government cut backs they’ll have to adopt the gilbert and sullivan song to save money?

the discussion on chat earlier this afterynoon was much better than this thread. So much rubbish.

party_pants said:

the discussion on chat earlier this afterynoon was much better than this thread. So much rubbish.

except the invention of the word “afterynoon”. I’ll use that somewhere…….

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

the discussion on chat earlier this afterynoon was much better than this thread. So much rubbish.

except the invention of the word “afterynoon”. I’ll use that somewhere…….

ohhhhhhhhhhhhh —- hhhhhhhhhhhhh

afterynoon delight

Please’ be waiting for me baby when I come around We could make a lot of lovin’ ‘for the sun goes down

Thinkin’ of you’s workin’ up an appetite Looking forward to a little afterynoon delight Rubbin’ sticks and stones together makes the sparks ingite And the thought of rubbin’ you is getting so exciting Sky rockets in flight Afterynoon delight Afterynoon delight Afterynoon delight Afterynoon delight Afternoon delight

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

the discussion on chat earlier this afterynoon was much better than this thread. So much rubbish.

except the invention of the word “afterynoon”. I’ll use that somewhere…….

I didn’t invent the word. Not sure where I heard it first.

How the F-35 performs will be for time to tell; those who say that the F/A-18 is just as good are obviously being influenced by Carlo Kopp (he who shall not be named!). It is an ambitious project and breaks new ground in many areas. No doubt there will be problems but the gains are also significant.

some of Kopp’s stuff is alright, air power australia has some interesting articles.

Obviousman said:

How the F-35 performs will be for time to tell; those who say that the F/A-18 is just as good are obviously being influenced by Carlo Kopp (he who shall not be named!). It is an ambitious project and breaks new ground in many areas. No doubt there will be problems but the gains are also significant.

Not a fan?

:)

Obviousman said:

How the F-35 performs will be for time to tell; those who say that the F/A-18 is just as good are obviously being influenced by Carlo Kopp (he who shall not be named!). It is an ambitious project and breaks new ground in many areas. No doubt there will be problems but the gains are also significant.

Yeah I am conflicted. Not the plane I would order but I have no idea of the netcentric nature of the advantage they imagined.

In Oz there is a tension between being a first world country and of course we look for first world military solutions. I am not c0onvinced the F-35 is all that, or will ever be all that. However if you throw enough money at it…

And I am not sure state warfare is a factor for the future, I see lots of nationalistic but discrete actions, ie Kurds, religious war, but not so much wars over borders.

party_pants said:

Obviousman said:

How the F-35 performs will be for time to tell; those who say that the F/A-18 is just as good are obviously being influenced by Carlo Kopp (he who shall not be named!). It is an ambitious project and breaks new ground in many areas. No doubt there will be problems but the gains are also significant.

Not a fan?

:)

I’m worried about the delays, the rise in costs and development problems…. but the F-111 should be a lesson, showing what can be gained.

I like Carlos gear but he is biased as fuck. Having said that his calculations are spot on. The F-35 would nbot have been my choice for a multirole plane.

There is also the aspect of strategic and tactical which much more capable platforms confuse.

With very sophisticated planes you have to gain air superiority quickly, you cant afford a war of attrition, you cant replace them very quickly.

Peak Warming Man said:

With very sophisticated planes you have to gain air superiority quickly, you cant afford a war of attrition, you cant replace them very quickly.

The Falkland’s is a classic example. An air war of attrition would have seen the UK lose.

Skunkworks said:

Obviousman said:

How the F-35 performs will be for time to tell; those who say that the F/A-18 is just as good are obviously being influenced by Carlo Kopp (he who shall not be named!). It is an ambitious project and breaks new ground in many areas. No doubt there will be problems but the gains are also significant.

Yeah I am conflicted. Not the plane I would order but I have no idea of the netcentric nature of the advantage they imagined.

In Oz there is a tension between being a first world country and of course we look for first world military solutions. I am not c0onvinced the F-35 is all that, or will ever be all that. However if you throw enough money at it…

And I am not sure state warfare is a factor for the future, I see lots of nationalistic but discrete actions, ie Kurds, religious war, but not so much wars over borders.

war is conducted to gain something

usually land

Peak Warming Man said:

Peak Warming Man said:

With very sophisticated planes you have to gain air superiority quickly, you cant afford a war of attrition, you cant replace them very quickly.

The Falkland’s is a classic example. An air war of attrition would have seen the UK lose.

You just need to have more planes than your enemy.

Peak Warming Man said:

With very sophisticated planes you have to gain air superiority quickly, you cant afford a war of attrition, you cant replace them very quickly.

Quickly? Indeed pilots and planes can not be replaced within the duration of a war in the modern context. You go with what you bring.

Peak Warming Man said:

Peak Warming Man said:

With very sophisticated planes you have to gain air superiority quickly, you cant afford a war of attrition, you cant replace them very quickly.

The Falkland’s is a classic example. An air war of attrition would have seen the UK lose.

yeah waste of time

it would have been simpler and cheaper to blockade the island with subs, sink the carrier and battleship

landing an army was very

in such delicate times applying a gentle but firm headlock, with an ever tightening grip would have done the job

you’d just sit the navy out to sea with all systems alert and fully equipped to take on the exocet and let the siege begin, I suppose if you were particularly malicious you could turn up every night and bomb such things as the canteen

Skunkworks said:

Peak Warming Man said:

With very sophisticated planes you have to gain air superiority quickly, you cant afford a war of attrition, you cant replace them very quickly.

Quickly? Indeed pilots and planes can not be replaced within the duration of a war in the modern context. You go with what you bring.

457 visa

Skunkworks said:

I like Carlos gear but he is biased as fuck. Having said that his calculations are spot on. The F-35 would nbot have been my choice for a multirole plane.

There is also the aspect of strategic and tactical which much more capable platforms confuse.

The decision now though rather than 7 years ago – are there any alternatives still with production lines open? It seems to me the sort of thing we’re stuck with now.

One of the drawbacks with drones is that their communications can be jammed I’d imagine, once you know how to do that you render them useless, although the US has not seemed to have had any problems with that to date but they have only been using them against busted arsed countries.

The Falklands demonstrated some good lessons.

The Argentinians were operating their aircraft at the outer edge of their range, so tactical employment was limited… but they had the Exocet, which proved devastating to the naval forces. The Brits were able to bring up a crude but working AEW system via the SeaKing, providing long range raid warning for the ships, allowing the Harriers to come up and meet the threat.

Does this sound familiar?

solid fuel ICBMs with conventional warheads is the cheapest option

you suss out the airfields the aircraft have come from and hit them with fuel air bomb warhead – this kind of weapon will kill all the personnel they have that can maintain the aircraft

you hit them with a first salvo then follow it up ten minutes with another as all the first aid types and anyone else who survived comes out of hiding to tend to the wound and the dead

solid fuel missiles are fast, reliable and will evade most systems that exist – you can design it to withstand laser strike and create a trajectory to evade anti missiles missiles

Peak Warming Man said:

One of the drawbacks with drones is that their communications can be jammed I’d imagine, once you know how to do that you render them useless, although the US has not seemed to have had any problems with that to date but they have only been using them against busted arsed countries.

the Taliban had hacked the drones comms for years

they could see everything the drones could see

the enemy can create temporary airfields but canvas tents will be no match for fuel air bombs

wookiemeister said:

Peak Warming Man said:

One of the drawbacks with drones is that their communications can be jammed I’d imagine, once you know how to do that you render them useless, although the US has not seemed to have had any problems with that to date but they have only been using them against busted arsed countries.

the Taliban had hacked the drones comms for years

they could see everything the drones could see

You’re lying.

Peak Warming Man said:

wookiemeister said:

Peak Warming Man said:

One of the drawbacks with drones is that their communications can be jammed I’d imagine, once you know how to do that you render them useless, although the US has not seemed to have had any problems with that to date but they have only been using them against busted arsed countries.

the Taliban had hacked the drones comms for years

they could see everything the drones could see

You’re lying.

http://theaviationist.com/2013/11/13/heron-hacked-afghanistan/

German Heron Drone Hacked and Crashed by Taliban in Afghanistan

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/17/skygrabber-american-drones-hacked

wookiemeister said:

the enemy can create temporary airfields but canvas tents will be no match for fuel air bombs

Agreed, the art is finding the temporary airfields within a useful time scale, killing them is shedloads easier.

Skunkworks said:

wookiemeister said:

the enemy can create temporary airfields but canvas tents will be no match for fuel air bombs

Agreed, the art is finding the temporary airfields within a useful time scale, killing them is shedloads easier.

you could put a high altitude balloon over parts of the country and watch as the aircraft take off and land

being forewarned of the possible attack would allow you to watch more carefully where these aircraft are and blow them up before they can be used in a pre emptive strike – you shouldn’t leave any of the aircraft functional.

or do something like insert a swarm of microsatellites over the country and watch from there. you might only be looking for infra red trails that lead you to the mother lode

wookiemeister said:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/17/skygrabber-american-drones-hacked

Fair enough, they did fix the breach though.

Peak Warming Man said:

wookiemeister said:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/17/skygrabber-american-drones-hacked

Fair enough, they did fix the breach though.

as far as they know

http://theaviationist.com/2013/11/13/heron-hacked-afghanistan/

the comments are interesting.

they don’t have a paperclip popping up telling them “it looks as if someone has hacked your drones”

wookiemeister said:

Skunkworks said:

Peak Warming Man said:

With very sophisticated planes you have to gain air superiority quickly, you cant afford a war of attrition, you cant replace them very quickly.

Quickly? Indeed pilots and planes can not be replaced within the duration of a war in the modern context. You go with what you bring.

457 visa

Hahahahahahaha! :)) :)

wookiemeister said:

you could put a high altitude balloon over parts of the country and watch as the aircraft take off and land

being forewarned of the possible attack would allow you to watch more carefully where these aircraft are and blow them up before they can be used in a pre emptive strike – you shouldn’t leave any of the aircraft functional.

You ummmmm could. The enemy will notice though. You imagine set piece battles in your mind focussing on what you will do not understanding that your enemy will not oblige and is looking at your plans and intent and is as equally intelligent in confounding them.

it wouldn’t be a bad idea to contact the Taliban and ask them how to hack the heron, the Australians have bought some recently and I can’t really afford a drone at the moment so it would be cool to get one for free

wookiemeister said:

solid fuel ICBMs with conventional warheads is the cheapest option

you suss out the airfields the aircraft have come from and hit them with fuel air bomb warhead – this kind of weapon will kill all the personnel they have that can maintain the aircraft

you hit them with a first salvo then follow it up ten minutes with another as all the first aid types and anyone else who survived comes out of hiding to tend to the wound and the dead

solid fuel missiles are fast, reliable and will evade most systems that exist – you can design it to withstand laser strike and create a trajectory to evade anti missiles missiles

Sounds difficult.

wookiemeister said:

http://theaviationist.com/2013/11/13/heron-hacked-afghanistan/

German Heron Drone Hacked and Crashed by Taliban in Afghanistan

Note the history of poor performance and the CLAIM that it was hacked.

Is it possible? Yes.

Is it likely once? Could be.

Is it likely on a continuing basis? Absolutely not. Not only do the Taliban not have the technical resources for a sustain cyber attack, how likely is the US to continually use – and rely on – a weapons system they know is compromised?

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

solid fuel ICBMs with conventional warheads is the cheapest option

you suss out the airfields the aircraft have come from and hit them with fuel air bomb warhead – this kind of weapon will kill all the personnel they have that can maintain the aircraft

you hit them with a first salvo then follow it up ten minutes with another as all the first aid types and anyone else who survived comes out of hiding to tend to the wound and the dead

solid fuel missiles are fast, reliable and will evade most systems that exist – you can design it to withstand laser strike and create a trajectory to evade anti missiles missiles

Sounds difficult.

solid fuel missiles are quite commonplace because of their reliability

the Russians have some that pop out a tube and reach maybe 50m in the air , a small thruster pushes the rocket over and then it soars out of sight

Obviousman said:

wookiemeister said:

http://theaviationist.com/2013/11/13/heron-hacked-afghanistan/

German Heron Drone Hacked and Crashed by Taliban in Afghanistan

Note the history of poor performance and the CLAIM that it was hacked.

Is it possible? Yes.

Is it likely once? Could be.

Is it likely on a continuing basis? Absolutely not. Not only do the Taliban not have the technical resources for a sustain cyber attack, how likely is the US to continually use – and rely on – a weapons system they know is compromised?

it could be an awful lot of money to fix it

there’s a long history of armies using equipment known to be compromised

iran would have been taking an interest

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

solid fuel ICBMs with conventional warheads is the cheapest option

you suss out the airfields the aircraft have come from and hit them with fuel air bomb warhead – this kind of weapon will kill all the personnel they have that can maintain the aircraft

you hit them with a first salvo then follow it up ten minutes with another as all the first aid types and anyone else who survived comes out of hiding to tend to the wound and the dead

solid fuel missiles are fast, reliable and will evade most systems that exist – you can design it to withstand laser strike and create a trajectory to evade anti missiles missiles

Sounds difficult.

solid fuel missiles are quite commonplace because of their reliability

the Russians have some that pop out a tube and reach maybe 50m in the air , a small thruster pushes the rocket over and then it soars out of sight

that’s not the difficult bit.

You think having an ICBM capability is a good thing?

Can you imagine the regional uproar that would (rightly) occur if Australia developed an ICMB – or even an IRBM – capability?

I’m still stuck on how we “suss out” where enemy airbases are in the first place. We’d need our own space program and spy satellite network.

Obviousman said:

You think having an ICBM capability is a good thing?

Can you imagine the regional uproar that would (rightly) occur if Australia developed an ICMB – or even an IRBM – capability?

.. but, but but … we’ll only be fitting them with fuel-air bombs, not even conventional high explosives!

pull the wings off a b52, put a rocket in its arse, fill it with hydrogen and oxygen and let it rip.

ChrispenEvan said:

pull the wings off a b52, put a rocket in its arse, fill it with hydrogen and oxygen and let it rip.

What about all the water balloons? It took me ages to fill and hang each one!

party_pants said:

Obviousman said:

You think having an ICBM capability is a good thing?

Can you imagine the regional uproar that would (rightly) occur if Australia developed an ICMB – or even an IRBM – capability?

.. but, but but … we’ll only be fitting them with fuel-air bombs, not even conventional high explosives!

smile

People oughta remember the F-111s and the B707 tankers.

maybe we could use nano-thermite?

party_pants said:

maybe we could use nano-thermite?

LOL!

So, Wookie’s cheaper and simpler plan than buying conventional fighter aircraft from the USA:

Develop an indigenous rocket from scratch with ICBM type ranges (because nobody will sell us one)
Develop a warhead system to go with it
Develop a super fuel-air bomb or some other similar type bomb from scratch (because non exist that are fitted to an ICBM, or if they did they wouldn’t sell us it anyway)
Develop the warhead specifically to deliver this fuel air bomb (because non exist, or if they did they wouldn’t sell them to us anyway)
Develop a real time spy satellite type
Develop our own spy satellite launch vehicle
Develop our own spy satellite data processing and information network.

Just so we can ‘suss out’ where an enemy plane has taken off from and then lob two fuel-air bombs on it ten minutes apart to wipe out the ground crew.

… all because the F-35 program is not going to be ready on-time and on-budget with all the resources thrown at it. We should ditch that program and launch our own locally resourced and indigenously developed 7 point plan, each as risky and as difficult as the one single plan it is replacing.

Perhaps it’s time i went to bed…?

party_pants said:

So, Wookie’s cheaper and simpler plan than buying conventional fighter aircraft from the USA:

Develop an indigenous rocket from scratch with ICBM type ranges (because nobody will sell us one)
Develop a warhead system to go with it
Develop a super fuel-air bomb or some other similar type bomb from scratch (because non exist that are fitted to an ICBM, or if they did they wouldn’t sell us it anyway)
Develop the warhead specifically to deliver this fuel air bomb (because non exist, or if they did they wouldn’t sell them to us anyway)
Develop a real time spy satellite type
Develop our own spy satellite launch vehicle
Develop our own spy satellite data processing and information network.

Just so we can ‘suss out’ where an enemy plane has taken off from and then lob two fuel-air bombs on it ten minutes apart to wipe out the ground crew.

… all because the F-35 program is not going to be ready on-time and on-budget with all the resources thrown at it. We should ditch that program and launch our own locally resourced and indigenously developed 7 point plan, each as risky and as difficult as the one single plan it is replacing.

Perhaps it’s time i went to bed…?

Nahhhh! 386!

That’s xkcd 386…

Michael V said:

That’s xkcd 386…

386

Michael V said:

Michael V said:

That’s xkcd 386…

386

I resemble that remark!

party_pants said:

So, Wookie’s cheaper and simpler plan than buying conventional fighter aircraft from the USA:

Develop an indigenous rocket from scratch with ICBM type ranges (because nobody will sell us one)
Develop a warhead system to go with it
Develop a super fuel-air bomb or some other similar type bomb from scratch (because non exist that are fitted to an ICBM, or if they did they wouldn’t sell us it anyway)
Develop the warhead specifically to deliver this fuel air bomb (because non exist, or if they did they wouldn’t sell them to us anyway)
Develop a real time spy satellite type
Develop our own spy satellite launch vehicle
Develop our own spy satellite data processing and information network.

Just so we can ‘suss out’ where an enemy plane has taken off from and then lob two fuel-air bombs on it ten minutes apart to wipe out the ground crew.

… all because the F-35 program is not going to be ready on-time and on-budget with all the resources thrown at it. We should ditch that program and launch our own locally resourced and indigenously developed 7 point plan, each as risky and as difficult as the one single plan it is replacing.

Perhaps it’s time i went to bed…?

No, I think you have it summarised nicely. Like most of Wookie’s ideas / comments, well-meaning but rarely based in reality or practicality.

party_pants said:

Michael V said:

Michael V said:

That’s xkcd 386…

386

I resemble that remark!

:)

(Me too…)

They couldn’t even come up with a design for the service rifle – they have to make it under licence from Austria. I’d wager that they have to import the ammo for it too. The show used by the ships, tanks, artillery pieces would have to be imported as well.

They do make that rabbit skin hat though, we probably could make those fluffy feathers that you see on some of those hats, guns , aircraft, tanks and the ammo associated – no. Any hi tech stuff is imported. When they’ve tried making them here they never had anyone ridding the projects of malicious entities that stymie and spread confusion.

They do make boats but the hi tech stuff like missiles , guns , radar computers etc would all be from elsewhere

This is the problem when you knock out manufacturing a d the associated education , you end up with zero capability and have to march around the world at the whim of whatever backer you have.

Dusts off the scripts of the TSR2 Vs F111 “debate” (which was more of a mass debate) “here, see if this helps?”

Long range stealth cruise missiles with nuclear warheads , both tactical and strategic, launched from reinforced underground bases in Northern Australia.

Depleted uranium warheads for use against shipping, aircraft carriers etc.

A nuclear deterrent is the best way of defending ourselves against larger armies; that is dissuade them from coming here in the first place.

Interesting aside I heard the other day, depleted uranium is used as ballast in the tails of 747’s.

rumpole said:

Long range stealth cruise missiles with nuclear warheads , both tactical and strategic, launched from reinforced underground bases in Northern Australia.

Depleted uranium warheads for use against shipping, aircraft carriers etc.

Well, we need something to give our northern neighbours pause to think, since the F-111s retired.