#Official Defence Thread

All other development discussion.
Message
Author
ghs
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1726
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:09 am
Location: Brighton

Re: #Official Defence Thread

#331 Post by ghs » Fri Mar 18, 2022 5:02 pm

rev wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 3:41 pm
"Brother", they're building a maintenance & modification facility for the Poseidons and Wedgetails, and other high tech surveillance aircraft at Edinburgh. It has nothing to do with the flooding.

No 1 Squadron is based at Amberley. Its made up of Super Hornets. No 6 squadron with the Growler which is based on the Hornet, is also based there.
Amberley is also home to the C17 and C27 transports and the aerial refuelling tanker fleet.

You do know Amberley is the biggest RAAF base right?
There doing upgrades to the base. RAAF wants it to be a "superbase".

Like has been said already, the wedgetails moving here has nothing to do with flooding.
Firstly, the super hornets were retired last year and have been replaced by F35’s.

If Amberley is a good defence site, then why aren’t they relocating the P8 Poseidon aircraft to Brisbane and
then doing 737 maintenance up there ??

And why aren’t they using Amberley as a base for the F35’s?

Amberley was flooded just a few weeks ago which is a significant risk to our nation’s security.

User avatar
[Shuz]
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2953
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: #Official Defence Thread

#332 Post by [Shuz] » Fri Mar 18, 2022 5:29 pm

Your incessant rambling is a risk to national security... brother. :roll:
Any views and opinions expressed are of my own, and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation with.

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 5272
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: #Official Defence Thread

#333 Post by rev » Fri Mar 18, 2022 7:12 pm

ghs wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 5:02 pm
rev wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 3:41 pm
"Brother", they're building a maintenance & modification facility for the Poseidons and Wedgetails, and other high tech surveillance aircraft at Edinburgh. It has nothing to do with the flooding.

No 1 Squadron is based at Amberley. Its made up of Super Hornets. No 6 squadron with the Growler which is based on the Hornet, is also based there.
Amberley is also home to the C17 and C27 transports and the aerial refuelling tanker fleet.

You do know Amberley is the biggest RAAF base right?
There doing upgrades to the base. RAAF wants it to be a "superbase".

Like has been said already, the wedgetails moving here has nothing to do with flooding.
Firstly, the super hornets were retired last year and have been replaced by F35’s.

If Amberley is a good defence site, then why aren’t they relocating the P8 Poseidon aircraft to Brisbane and
then doing 737 maintenance up there ??

And why aren’t they using Amberley as a base for the F35’s?

Amberley was flooded just a few weeks ago which is a significant risk to our nation’s security.
The Super Hornets have not been retired, they are barely a decade old.
Here, maybe the RAAF website will help some facts sink in..

https://www.airforce.gov.au/technology/ ... per-hornet

Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1078
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am

Re: #Official Defence Thread

#334 Post by Goodsy » Fri Mar 18, 2022 8:38 pm

ghs wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 5:02 pm
rev wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 3:41 pm
"Brother", they're building a maintenance & modification facility for the Poseidons and Wedgetails, and other high tech surveillance aircraft at Edinburgh. It has nothing to do with the flooding.

No 1 Squadron is based at Amberley. Its made up of Super Hornets. No 6 squadron with the Growler which is based on the Hornet, is also based there.
Amberley is also home to the C17 and C27 transports and the aerial refuelling tanker fleet.

You do know Amberley is the biggest RAAF base right?
There doing upgrades to the base. RAAF wants it to be a "superbase".

Like has been said already, the wedgetails moving here has nothing to do with flooding.
Firstly, the super hornets were retired last year and have been replaced by F35’s.

If Amberley is a good defence site, then why aren’t they relocating the P8 Poseidon aircraft to Brisbane and
then doing 737 maintenance up there ??

And why aren’t they using Amberley as a base for the F35’s?

Amberley was flooded just a few weeks ago which is a significant risk to our nation’s security.


Hornet's were retired last year and replaced by F-35's, Super Hornets are still in service, which replaced out F-111's

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 5272
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: #Official Defence Thread

#335 Post by rev » Fri Mar 25, 2022 11:18 am

https://www.news.com.au/national/osborn ... ce53712bc7

Announcement on the federal government securing more land at Osborne, the ship/sub yards will triple in size for the nuclear submarine build.
By the looks of it, most of that land north up to Pelican Point power station, if not all of it, will be taken.
Also work on the frigates has started.

ghs
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1726
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:09 am
Location: Brighton

Re: #Official Defence Thread

#336 Post by ghs » Fri Mar 25, 2022 12:20 pm

Here we go...

This is the beginning of a huge bonanza for South Australia, especially if Scotty gets over the line in May !

These nuclear submarines are going to cost a fortune, I would estimate they are going to cost a lazy $200 billion to build.
And then once in service you’re looking at another $200 to $300 billion to maintain them.

Furthermore, now that Scotty has decided to go nuclear we are going to have a capability gap.

The Collins class submarines are going to run out of steam before the nuclear subs are finished. So we may see an additional fleet of conventional submarines built to fill the gap. This could mean another $40 to $50 billion for SA.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, a vote for Morrison is a vote for SA.

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 5272
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: #Official Defence Thread

#337 Post by rev » Fri Mar 25, 2022 6:18 pm

Theyre not going to build conventional subs while building nuclear powered subs.

It has little to do with whose in government. All that will affect, is what type of subs.
If Labor won, they'd be stupid to delay it any further by changing things up again, your mate Scotty already fucked it up by changing course.
Im sure you're aware the French also have nuclear subs, and the subs we were going to get were a modified version of them.

Both sides have stuffed this up massively.
The nuclear option should have been chosen from the start, and if they didn't piss fart around we'd be a few years away from the first sub, if not already have it in the water.
Its been obvious for over 20 years that China is going to become an adversary and at least an unfriendly country on our door step.

ghs
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1726
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:09 am
Location: Brighton

Re: #Official Defence Thread

#338 Post by ghs » Sat Mar 26, 2022 1:44 pm

rev wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 6:18 pm
Theyre not going to build conventional subs while building nuclear powered subs.
The Collins class are one of the best defence assets that Australia has.

You can’t have a period of about 10 years where we don’t have any submarines.

Assuming that the nuclear subs enter service in say 2042 and the Collins class finish in say 2035,
what is the ADF going to do to fill the gap?

Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1078
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am

Re: #Official Defence Thread

#339 Post by Goodsy » Sat Mar 26, 2022 5:43 pm

ghs wrote:
Sat Mar 26, 2022 1:44 pm
rev wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 6:18 pm
Theyre not going to build conventional subs while building nuclear powered subs.
The Collins class are one of the best defence assets that Australia has.

You can’t have a period of about 10 years where we don’t have any submarines.

Assuming that the nuclear subs enter service in say 2042 and the Collins class finish in say 2035,
what is the ADF going to do to fill the gap?
rely on our allies to fill the deterrence role. If there was a major threat they'd fast track a stop gap solution

NTRabbit
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:00 pm

Re: #Official Defence Thread

#340 Post by NTRabbit » Sun Mar 27, 2022 10:40 pm

ghs wrote:
Fri Mar 18, 2022 12:20 pm
rev wrote:
Thu Mar 17, 2022 8:12 pm


You actually think they're moving the Wedgetails here because of floods?
Why aren't they moving the Hornets and F35's here then? Or the majority of all assets for that matter.
Brother, if the wedgetails are not being moved due to flooding concerns, then why are they being re-located?
Edinburgh is the home of the RAAFs Maritime and Strategic Surveillance wing, which is currently our P-8 Poseidon squadron, the last remaining AP-3C Orions awaiting retirement, and in the future our MQ-4 Triton drone squadron, and MC-55A Peregrine SIGINT/ELINT squadron. Edinburgh has been the home for that for many decades for various reasons. As the P-8 Poseidon and the E-7A Wedgetail are both 737 derivatives (737-800EX and 737NG), it makes sense to headquarter them at one location for logistical purposes, one maintenance facility shared between the two.

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 5272
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: #Official Defence Thread

#341 Post by rev » Mon Mar 28, 2022 9:38 am

ghs wrote:
Sat Mar 26, 2022 1:44 pm
rev wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 6:18 pm
Theyre not going to build conventional subs while building nuclear powered subs.
The Collins class are one of the best defence assets that Australia has.

You can’t have a period of about 10 years where we don’t have any submarines.

Assuming that the nuclear subs enter service in say 2042 and the Collins class finish in say 2035,
what is the ADF going to do to fill the gap?
They can extend their life with work done at Osborne. The Collins shouldn't be scrapped afterwards either, as many as possible should be retained and mothballed and put into a strategic naval reserve, the same should happen with the Anzac frigates. It may be too late for some of the auxiliary/support ships. We can't churn out ships at the rate China can or at the rat the US can during a war economy. Keeping capable assets mothballed in a reserve would allow us to maintain the RAN during a war longer. Even the F111 bombers shouldn't have been scrapped, although I think many have been buried somewhere structurally intact.
They can lease US subs, which has already been mentioned as a possibility.
They can have the first sub or two built in the USA or UK, if our side isn't ready to start building them in time leaving a capability gap.

SBD
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2087
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview

Re: #Official Defence Thread

#342 Post by SBD » Mon Mar 28, 2022 11:47 am

rev wrote:
Mon Mar 28, 2022 9:38 am
ghs wrote:
Sat Mar 26, 2022 1:44 pm
rev wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 6:18 pm
Theyre not going to build conventional subs while building nuclear powered subs.
The Collins class are one of the best defence assets that Australia has.

You can’t have a period of about 10 years where we don’t have any submarines.

Assuming that the nuclear subs enter service in say 2042 and the Collins class finish in say 2035,
what is the ADF going to do to fill the gap?
They can extend their life with work done at Osborne. The Collins shouldn't be scrapped afterwards either, as many as possible should be retained and mothballed and put into a strategic naval reserve, the same should happen with the Anzac frigates. It may be too late for some of the auxiliary/support ships. We can't churn out ships at the rate China can or at the rat the US can during a war economy. Keeping capable assets mothballed in a reserve would allow us to maintain the RAN during a war longer. Even the F111 bombers shouldn't have been scrapped, although I think many have been buried somewhere structurally intact.
They can lease US subs, which has already been mentioned as a possibility.
They can have the first sub or two built in the USA or UK, if our side isn't ready to start building them in time leaving a capability gap.
Australia's technology edge kept our F-111s flying 12 years longer than anyone else's. They were a significant drain on the maintenance resources. It could not have been economic or practical to have kept them flying indefinitely longer.

There are still a couple of P-3 Orion airframes flying out of Edinburgh, but they have been flying on scrounged spare parts for years. Eventually an airframe just wears out.

It may be worthwhile keeping the Anzac frigates available, but that will not be a cost-free decision. The physical asset will require a level of protective maintenance, and it will have outdated control, weapons, sensor systems. If the systems are still "good", they'll probably be transferred to the new platform, and if not, there would need to be maintenance and training capabilities maintained to keep an obsolete system workable "just in case". At some point, it becomes much better to buy or build new ones. The navy has experience of keeping the supply fleet running much longer than it should have, for example.

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 5272
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: #Official Defence Thread

#343 Post by rev » Mon Mar 28, 2022 6:00 pm

SBD wrote:
Mon Mar 28, 2022 11:47 am
rev wrote:
Mon Mar 28, 2022 9:38 am
ghs wrote:
Sat Mar 26, 2022 1:44 pm


The Collins class are one of the best defence assets that Australia has.

You can’t have a period of about 10 years where we don’t have any submarines.

Assuming that the nuclear subs enter service in say 2042 and the Collins class finish in say 2035,
what is the ADF going to do to fill the gap?
They can extend their life with work done at Osborne. The Collins shouldn't be scrapped afterwards either, as many as possible should be retained and mothballed and put into a strategic naval reserve, the same should happen with the Anzac frigates. It may be too late for some of the auxiliary/support ships. We can't churn out ships at the rate China can or at the rat the US can during a war economy. Keeping capable assets mothballed in a reserve would allow us to maintain the RAN during a war longer. Even the F111 bombers shouldn't have been scrapped, although I think many have been buried somewhere structurally intact.
They can lease US subs, which has already been mentioned as a possibility.
They can have the first sub or two built in the USA or UK, if our side isn't ready to start building them in time leaving a capability gap.
Australia's technology edge kept our F-111s flying 12 years longer than anyone else's. They were a significant drain on the maintenance resources. It could not have been economic or practical to have kept them flying indefinitely longer.

There are still a couple of P-3 Orion airframes flying out of Edinburgh, but they have been flying on scrounged spare parts for years. Eventually an airframe just wears out.

It may be worthwhile keeping the Anzac frigates available, but that will not be a cost-free decision. The physical asset will require a level of protective maintenance, and it will have outdated control, weapons, sensor systems. If the systems are still "good", they'll probably be transferred to the new platform, and if not, there would need to be maintenance and training capabilities maintained to keep an obsolete system workable "just in case". At some point, it becomes much better to buy or build new ones. The navy has experience of keeping the supply fleet running much longer than it should have, for example.
I did not say to keep them flying.
I said they should have been kept in storage, mothballed in other words. Instead of being scrapped and totally losing that capability. They were a long range strike capability.

It's not about keeping them updated. It's about attrition in a war and having a reserve force to call upon.
The US has a reserve naval fleet.
The maintenance work to keep them afloat could be outsourced from the navy to the likes of ASC & Austal, helping sustain those yards.

Will it cost money? Of course, but defence, and maintaining our freedom and way of life isn't free.

SBD
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2087
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview

Re: #Official Defence Thread

#344 Post by SBD » Tue Mar 29, 2022 12:51 am

rev wrote:
Mon Mar 28, 2022 6:00 pm
SBD wrote:
Mon Mar 28, 2022 11:47 am
rev wrote:
Mon Mar 28, 2022 9:38 am


They can extend their life with work done at Osborne. The Collins shouldn't be scrapped afterwards either, as many as possible should be retained and mothballed and put into a strategic naval reserve, the same should happen with the Anzac frigates. It may be too late for some of the auxiliary/support ships. We can't churn out ships at the rate China can or at the rat the US can during a war economy. Keeping capable assets mothballed in a reserve would allow us to maintain the RAN during a war longer. Even the F111 bombers shouldn't have been scrapped, although I think many have been buried somewhere structurally intact.
They can lease US subs, which has already been mentioned as a possibility.
They can have the first sub or two built in the USA or UK, if our side isn't ready to start building them in time leaving a capability gap.
Australia's technology edge kept our F-111s flying 12 years longer than anyone else's. They were a significant drain on the maintenance resources. It could not have been economic or practical to have kept them flying indefinitely longer.

There are still a couple of P-3 Orion airframes flying out of Edinburgh, but they have been flying on scrounged spare parts for years. Eventually an airframe just wears out.

It may be worthwhile keeping the Anzac frigates available, but that will not be a cost-free decision. The physical asset will require a level of protective maintenance, and it will have outdated control, weapons, sensor systems. If the systems are still "good", they'll probably be transferred to the new platform, and if not, there would need to be maintenance and training capabilities maintained to keep an obsolete system workable "just in case". At some point, it becomes much better to buy or build new ones. The navy has experience of keeping the supply fleet running much longer than it should have, for example.
I did not say to keep them flying.
I said they should have been kept in storage, mothballed in other words. Instead of being scrapped and totally losing that capability. They were a long range strike capability.

It's not about keeping them updated. It's about attrition in a war and having a reserve force to call upon.
The US has a reserve naval fleet.
The maintenance work to keep them afloat could be outsourced from the navy to the likes of ASC & Austal, helping sustain those yards.

Will it cost money? Of course, but defence, and maintaining our freedom and way of life isn't free.
There is no value in keeping them mothballed if they cannot be flown again. They are not a reserve force if neither the expertise to operate and maintain them nor the material strength to have them capable of a successful sortie remains. Ships and planes (and tanks and trucks) can't just be parked in the corner and expected to still be useful in five or ten years time if they were already at the end of their useful life.

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 5272
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: #Official Defence Thread

#345 Post by rev » Tue Mar 29, 2022 4:17 pm

Oh ffs, I'm not doing this round in circles discussion with you anymore.

If you don't understand, go research it.
Last edited by rev on Wed Mar 30, 2022 12:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests