Defence plan to scrap F-111s

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:19:59 +0800, Paul Saccani
wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:15:15 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:



A worst-case scenario might be China allied with Indonesia, and
Australia doesn't have any allies, sometime between 2010-2020. I'd
imagine by that time China would have enough advanced aircraft to
win air superiority, in which case Australia's best hope to stop an
invasion would probably be submarines (firing high-speed
cavitating torpedoes)

An absolute desperation weapon adopted only the Russians


and anti-ship missiles.


Reactive instead of proactive defense doesnt work well in this situation,
fact is there's no way Austalia would have a hope in hell of intercepting
an invasion fleet with submarines unles they have efficient maritime
surveillance
and that requires air superiority.

Sinking the fleet before it leaves home water or in one of the
choke points in the Indonesian archipelago is a much better
strategy.

Keith

Keith

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:52:16 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
...
[...] in which case Australia's best hope to stop an
invasion would probably be submarines (firing high-speed
cavitating torpedoes)

An absolute desperation weapon adopted only the Russians

Explain why cavitating torpedos are a desperation weapon, please.

and anti-ship missiles.

Reactive instead of proactive defense doesnt work well in this situation,
fact is there's no way Austalia would have a hope in hell of intercepting
an invasion fleet with submarines unles they have efficient maritime
surveillance and that requires air superiority.

True. But if you don't intercept the invasion fleet (and if it's a
surprise attack, it would be hard to), then you can at least
intercept the following supply fleets. (Although the invaders might
be able to supply from the air).

Given that air superiority is obviously a good idea, which aircraft
supplies the most air superiority capability per money spent? The
F-22 (assuming the USA would sell it)? The F-35? The Typhoon?
Something else?

Sinking the fleet before it leaves home water or in one of the
choke points in the Indonesian archipelago is a much better
strategy.

Indeed, if possible.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

In message , phil hunt
writes
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:52:16 +0100, Keith Willshaw keith@kwil
lshaw_NoSpam.demon.co.uk wrote:
An absolute desperation weapon adopted only the Russians

Explain why cavitating torpedos are a desperation weapon, please.

They're LOUD. So, the enemy knows they're coming from the moment you
fire; which means they're good counterfire weapons, but not much use if
you enjoy an acoustic advantage. Shkval is a means to try to redress "we
are noisier than the enemy, and have poorer sonar": it's designed to be
a response to hearing "high speed screws, Green 150, torpedo inbound,
bearing steady!"

For above-water use, you have to get close, because they're unguided.
Even at 200 knots, the huge noise signature means the enemy will alter
course and speed at once, so long range shots are unlikely to succeed.

Like some other Russian weapons, it's an elegant and well-engineered
solution to a particular problem they faced, that works much less well
when transplanted to other roles and export markets.

Given that air superiority is obviously a good idea, which aircraft
supplies the most air superiority capability per money spent? The
F-22 (assuming the USA would sell it)? The F-35? The Typhoon?
Something else?

Typhoon for bang-per-buck, F-22 for absolute if costly capability per
airframe. Haggle to see what both factions will sell for, and how
degraded the 'export version' is.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:09:37 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , phil hunt
writes
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:52:16 +0100, Keith Willshaw keith@kwil
lshaw_NoSpam.demon.co.uk wrote:
An absolute desperation weapon adopted only the Russians

Explain why cavitating torpedos are a desperation weapon, please.

They're LOUD. So, the enemy knows they're coming from the moment you
fire; which means they're good counterfire weapons, but not much use if
you enjoy an acoustic advantage. Shkval is a means to try to redress "we
are noisier than the enemy, and have poorer sonar": it's designed to be
a response to hearing "high speed screws, Green 150, torpedo inbound,
bearing steady!"

Would it be possible to have a supersonic torpedo? That'd be hard to
dodge, I imagine.

For above-water use, you have to get close, because they're unguided.

I don't see any reason why one couldn't be fitted with a guiadance
system.

Given that air superiority is obviously a good idea, which aircraft
supplies the most air superiority capability per money spent? The
F-22 (assuming the USA would sell it)? The F-35? The Typhoon?
Something else?

Typhoon for bang-per-buck, F-22 for absolute if costly capability per
airframe.

I guess the F-35 tryies to do to many things to be a superlative
fighter.

Haggle to see what both factions will sell for, and how
degraded the 'export version' is.

That would make sense.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

In message , phil hunt
writes
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:09:37 +0100, Paul J. Adam news@jrwlyn
ch.demon.co.uk wrote:
They're LOUD. So, the enemy knows they're coming from the moment you
fire; which means they're good counterfire weapons, but not much use if
you enjoy an acoustic advantage. Shkval is a means to try to redress "we
are noisier than the enemy, and have poorer sonar": it's designed to be
a response to hearing "high speed screws, Green 150, torpedo inbound,
bearing steady!"

Would it be possible to have a supersonic torpedo? That'd be hard to
dodge, I imagine.

Speed of sound in water is about 3,000 miles an hour, from memory, so
getting a torpedo to go that fast would be a significant achievement.

For above-water use, you have to get close, because they're unguided.

I don't see any reason why one couldn't be fitted with a guiadance
system.

Torpedo guidance needs the torpedo to listen for either the noise of the
enemy, or the sonar echoes from its own transmission. Shkval achieves
its speed by 'supercavitating', meaning it's sheathed in a layer of
bubbles; and, again, it's really noisy. Both factors mean it can't use a
guidance system other than basic gyrostabilisation.

Typhoon for bang-per-buck, F-22 for absolute if costly capability per
airframe.

I guess the F-35 tryies to do to many things to be a superlative
fighter.

I think it'll do many things well, but the F-22 and Typhoon were
designed as air-superiority fighters from the outset: Typhoon always had
a secondary ground-attack role, the F-22 is a tacked-on afterthought to
try to protect it from budget cuts

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

In article ,
Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , phil hunt
writes
For above-water use, you have to get close, because they're unguided.

I don't see any reason why one couldn't be fitted with a guiadance
system.

Torpedo guidance needs the torpedo to listen for either the noise of the
enemy, or the sonar echoes from its own transmission. Shkval achieves
its speed by 'supercavitating', meaning it's sheathed in a layer of
bubbles; and, again, it's really noisy. Both factors mean it can't use a
guidance system other than basic gyrostabilisation.

Could, I guess, use swim-out and look-around, then once it's got a fix
point-and-squirt at the target, hoping it hasn't moved much. Of course,
all that achieves with submarine launch is swapping a big, sensitive sonar
for a piddling little one and an added delay, but I guess it could work
for a surface launch from a quiet platform - but if I were driving the
platform I'd want ro be leaving as soon as possible after launch.

I dare say the thing could have a role as a coast-defence weapon in
something like the Fjords - a sort of successor to heavy shore-based
torpedo tubes.


--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

In message , ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
writes
I dare say the thing could have a role as a coast-defence weapon in
something like the Fjords - a sort of successor to heavy shore-based
torpedo tubes.

It's bloody good for its designed role, which is very rapid transport of
a bucket of instant sunshine to the general vicinity of a just-launched
enemy torpedo (and the submarine that launched it).

Like a lot of Russian kit, it does what it was designed to... the
trouble comes when you try making it do other roles.

Conventional warheads limit it to a longer-ranged (because of higher
speed) version of the old straight-runners, meaning "be close with a
really good fire control system" - if the enemy's a threat, you do _not_
want to be that close, if the enemy's supine you don't need Shkval.
Shore defence on the Norwegian model is an example where it could be
handy.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam wrote:

(snip)

Speed of sound in water is about 3,000 miles an hour, from memory, so
getting a torpedo to go that fast would be a significant achievement.
(snip)
Speed of sound in water is about 1500m/s, 3375mph roughly. As you would
expect, varies with salinity and temperature.
JD

(phil hunt) writes:
Given that air superiority is obviously a good idea, which aircraft
supplies the most air superiority capability per money spent?

Per money spent? Gripen.

/Tomas

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..

True. But if you don't intercept the invasion fleet (and if it's a
surprise attack, it would be hard to), then you can at least
intercept the following supply fleets. (Although the invaders might
be able to supply from the air).

Supply a force (that can invade Australia) from the air?

Not an option.