Originally posted by JRT
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
RAN's Collins class replacement
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by jlvfr View PostIt's simple logic: if side A drops a nuke, side B has no choice but to use their own, or loose the war/conflict/whatever. This will push A into firing more, to recover the initiative, forcing B to retaliate. And so on and so forth.
In the modern day context, we will not attack China's nukes with nukes. Our conventional strike force have enough power and accuracy to take them out. The question is do we know where all of them are?
Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bigfella View PostWe aren't Canada. We aren't part of an alliance essentially founded to fight a land & air war against an equally or better armed adversary and we shouldn't be shaping our land forces to that end. Especially if it costs us billions and saddles us with expensive, overweight equipment that essentially requires the US to provide logistics if we ever want to deploy it overseas. We have just spent 20 years fighting in 2 US wars and the tanks didn't leave our shores. We sent men, choppers soft skinned vehicles, lightly armoured vehicles and LAVs, but no tanks. That should tell you something. We are about to spend $2.5 billion to upgrade our fleet to 75 modernish M1 tanks. That means it is unlikely any more than 50ish will ever be deployed outside Australia at one time. America has thousands of these. If it can't deploy that number all by itself then it either didn't need them or has problems bigger than we are going to solve.
We need to focus on air & sea warfare. That is the key contribution we can make to any alliance and that is the key to defending our territory. I can see value in having armour, but a 70 ton behemoth with gas turbines ain't it. We need something we can transport, supply & deploy ourselves at home & abroad. The tanks we have now are not that. They never were & never will be. If someone is landing significant amounts of heavy armour on our shores and keeping it supplied it means our allies have been defeated or aren't showing up and our air & naval forces have been neutralized. Those M1s aren't going to save us.
I do take your point on training, but I refuse to believe that we have to drop $2.5 million on M1s to obtain that. It was and is the wrong purchase for the wrong reasons. I said when we purchased them that we will never deploy them overseas and I see no reason to change that assessment. If we were in NATO and close enough to somewhere that might need us to use armour then M1s might make more sense, but none of that is true.
And given your own experience in Vietnam, you know what tanks can do to light Vietnamese infantry. It is a hell of a lot better to be on the delivering end of tanks than the receiving end. The 70 ton behemonth term is a strawman arguement. The weight and power is what's needed to survive against infantry assaults. Any lighter tank would stand no chance against hand held RPGs. Again, both the USArmy and the Canadian Army tried the LAV-105. Didn't work. You pay for a tool that can dominate an engagement or you pay for that domination in blood.
However, to follow your logic about air and naval investments instead of ground forces. That logic is flawed. Ideally, you want to keep an enemy as far away from Australian shores as possible and that means a non-Australian airfield far from Australian shores. I don't know about you but I am not comfortable relying on troops who are not trained to my standards. That means I will be bringing my own security team, ie a battlegroup. Now, do you or do you not want a tank sqn in that battlegroup? Further more, do you want to help those close to you drive the enemy into the sea or do you want the enemy to set up base closer to your shores? In fact, I point to 1999 E Timor, 1AR was put on standby had things gone pearshaped. No airplane nor ship made the impact your army did in E Timor and your army thought they needed tanks just in case.
Australia has the logistics to support a tank sqn offshore. Australian C17s and C130s would make short work of any logistics need. The question is political will and funding, not capability.
BTW, Canada sent tanks to Afghanistan. There's no reason to suggest that Australia could not do the same, given that we have similar lift. Again, Australia was unwilling to committ tanks, not unable. I will not comment on the unwillingness. I'm not versed well enough on the political lanscape.
OH, and FOSTER SUCKS!Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 29 Sep 21,, 18:40.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostReal life example. Fearing a nuclear attack by the Soviets, Lin Bao ordered Chinese nukes to be mated to their rockets and the rockets be readied for launch. Field Marshall Nie disobeyed that order. His reasoning is that it is better to lose the nukes than to invite nuclear attack on Chinese cities.
In the modern day context, we will not attack China's nukes with nukes. Our conventional strike force have enough power and accuracy to take them out. The question is do we know where all of them are?
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostThe newest generation of SSBN's China is building make that question more difficult. Why build 8 (Jin) of them if you are not going to arm them? 6 currently deployed means they can have 2 at sea at any time, either in a bastion situation or on an operational patrol. They have another six (Tang) of a brand new class starting construction right now. That is not a technology demonstrator program, that is a deployed MAD level of deterrence. China under Xi at least as far as SSBN's goes is showing weapons are mated to nukes. When all 14 boats are in service they will have 14, the same number as the USN. They will be able to keep 3/4 subs at sea all the time. Plus the newest generation can hit the US mainland from much farther away. The Xia class couldn't.
Chimo
Comment
-
Arming an SSBN with HE/FAE when facing an opponent using SSBN's armed with nukes fails the prisoner's dilemma logic test. China would be betting the world's oldest continuous civilization that the US will risk it's civilization that the inbound warheads are not nuclear. There are 2 ways to avoid nuclear exchange: don't the ability to engage in nuclear war. China tried to straddle that by having weapons for the prestige but not the ability to deliver a first strike. The new classes of SSBN's say that policy has changed.
1. Unless they are based along side open air piers to be visually inspected by satellite over flights the existence of underground submarine pens on Hainan Island says the YS has to assume at least 1 is at sea at all times. If one is at sea at all times you have to assume it is nuclear armed.
2. If they were intended for prestige and not civilizational blackmail you would not need to match numbers with the US. Matching boat for boat is a declaratory statement that you are seeking to match death for death, ruin for ruin....MAD. MAD is only credible with mated delivery systems on a survivable platform.
3 conventional or FAE armed SLBM is 1/3300th of a tac nuke. The HE/FAE can cook a bunker just as good but the defenders have to think you intend to glass a city, port, airfield whatever (prisoner's dilemma)
Comment
-
Well, hasn't this thread wandered far and wide. Nice to see something with legs other than the American political seen for a change.If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostArming an SSBN with HE/FAE when facing an opponent using SSBN's armed with nukes fails the prisoner's dilemma logic test. China would be betting the world's oldest continuous civilization that the US will risk it's civilization that the inbound warheads are not nuclear. There are 2 ways to avoid nuclear exchange: don't the ability to engage in nuclear war. China tried to straddle that by having weapons for the prestige but not the ability to deliver a first strike. The new classes of SSBN's say that policy has changed.
1. Unless they are based along side open air piers to be visually inspected by satellite over flights the existence of underground submarine pens on Hainan Island says the YS has to assume at least 1 is at sea at all times. If one is at sea at all times you have to assume it is nuclear armed.
2. If they were intended for prestige and not civilizational blackmail you would not need to match numbers with the US. Matching boat for boat is a declaratory statement that you are seeking to match death for death, ruin for ruin....MAD. MAD is only credible with mated delivery systems on a survivable platform.
3 conventional or FAE armed SLBM is 1/3300th of a tac nuke. The HE/FAE can cook a bunker just as good but the defenders have to think you intend to glass a city, port, airfield whatever (prisoner's dilemma)
So, from China's view, it is best NOT to start a nuclear exchange. In that regard, if the US keeps to taking out China's nukes through conventional means, then China is 100% ready to lose her entire arsenal. In fact, that was what Field Marsall Nie was prepared to do with a Soviet nuclear strike. He refused to arm Chinese nukes which would force Moscow to strike first and even if Moscow struck first, it would be at Lop Nor and hopefully not Beijing.
However, the POSSIBILITY that China could hit US cities complicates US military planning up the ying-yang. In any US-China confrontation, Chinese nuclear assets will be targetted. For every bomb you drop on a Chinese silo is one less bomb that you're not dropping on a Chinese strike force towards American allies. There will be no Chinese missiles flying towards the US but American task forces hunting Chinese SSBNs cannot interevene against Chinese naval forces elsewhere, requing another US task force.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostYou're assuming China is willing to play that game. It's about deterence, not warfighting. There is no way in hell China can win a nuclear exchange. There is also no way in hell China can collapse the US through a nuclear exchange. At best, China can sting the US like hell but in no way can China collapse the US economy nor inflict a government collapse or cause a social collapse. There is only so much you can do with 100 warheads that can reach the US (and that's not counting the normal failure rate of 60% which means only 40 warheads will actually hit a city size target).
So, from China's view, it is best NOT to start a nuclear exchange. In that regard, if the US keeps to taking out China's nukes through conventional means, then China is 100% ready to lose her entire arsenal. In fact, that was what Field Marsall Nie was prepared to do with a Soviet nuclear strike. He refused to arm Chinese nukes which would force Moscow to strike first and even if Moscow struck first, it would be at Lop Nor and hopefully not Beijing.
However, the POSSIBILITY that China could hit US cities complicates US military planning up the ying-yang. In any US-China confrontation, Chinese nuclear assets will be targetted. For every bomb you drop on a Chinese silo is one less bomb that you're not dropping on a Chinese strike force towards American allies. There will be no Chinese missiles flying towards the US but American task forces hunting Chinese SSBNs cannot interevene against Chinese naval forces elsewhere, requing another US task force.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View Post14 submarines each with 12 silos each with a missile capable of 3-8 MIRV's is 540 to 1344 nuclear devices.
2) The Chinese only have enough fissile materials for ~400 warheads (more if they go for smaller yields, less if they go for bigger yields). They have not increased fissile material storage. The is verified by the IAEA in full compliance as a signatory to the NPT.
China currently is estimated at 250 warheads +/- 12 or so. China is allowed to increase her fissile material storage but that would be identified by the IAEA.
So, no, there is no Prisoner's Delima, at least not without the IAEA knowing about it.
Chimo
Comment
-
This source supports both of us. Me in that it claims China has enough fissile material to build 700ish warheads, you on doctrine
Why China stopped making fissile material for nukes - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (thebulletin.org)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostOk, I see where they're coming from. They went with the 4kg Pu estimate. Yeah ok, if you all want small yields but we know there are at least 12 warheads of 5 megaton range and 60+ warheads of 120 kt range. Those warheads would eat up a lot more than 4kg.
Back to the RAN, nuclear subs offer the best way to get military power to the likely theaters quickly. Perth to the East China Sea and back is about half a collins class fuel load. This limits its ability to patrol for long periods even if it only travels at its best cruising speed. A nuclear boat can get there in days, and then stay on station for 2 or more months without ever having to surface. It is a force multiplier.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostRegardless, its enough fissile material to end the United States, so the US would react to any ballistic missile launch from a sea based platform as if it was nuclear. SSBN's have no tactical value they are either first strike or revenge weapons. The ultimate, "We're so fucked" statement before the curtain drops.
I take point on conventional armed SLBMs have no value. SSGN uses conventional armed cruise missiles. There is zero difference in bang. Australian SSNs would be similarily armed with cruise missiles. The Chinese would not expect them to be nukes. We should similarily be as weary.
I will also point out to you that not a single nuclear power have a launch-on-warning system. It's too damned dangerous. Too many false alarms and too short a recaction time. We all have a launch-on-impact system. The West, at least, have enough redundency to survive a first strike of 10,000+ warheads. Let's put it this way, Cheyanne Mountain ain't scare of Chinese nukes.
Originally posted by zraver View PostBack to the RAN, nuclear subs offer the best way to get military power to the likely theaters quickly. Perth to the East China Sea and back is about half a collins class fuel load. This limits its ability to patrol for long periods even if it only travels at its best cruising speed. A nuclear boat can get there in days, and then stay on station for 2 or more months without ever having to surface. It is a force multiplier.Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 30 Sep 21,, 14:49.Chimo
Comment
-
Sir, I dissagree that subs are so easily countered. I will cite Four things things. 1. Aaron of Sub Brief claims surface sonar is at a huge disadvantage. The only platform he says he was scared of was the Soviet Horse Jaw sonar on the Udaloys. He claims its so massive and so powerful it can see farther than (cold war era) torpedo ranges, but that nothing else comes close. He claims no boat he was on was ever counter detected by USN, NATO or Soviet surface or air units and this was during the tail end of the Cold War when our ASW was at its peak. 2. The Gotland rand circles around the navy, we had no counter for an AIP DE boat. 3. Even an old Ming boat surprised the USN. 4. The RN and RAN both used to use O class boats to bottom sit off the Soviet and Chinese coasts and just suck up intelligence. Active sonar has the same problem radar does, the person you are trying to find can hear you before you can hear them. With modern subs as quiet as they are (less radiated noise than the ocean itself) and new hull shaping on the way to defeat active sonar. Detecting subs is hard work that is getting harder. Modern torpedos are very smart, very long ranged and ships no longer have torpedo defenses. Anti-ship missiles soon to be hypersonic are coming. Russia should have them this or next year. The USN is working on them.
Quantum computing and new sensors may change this in the medium/long term, but right now the nuclear sub is king of the sea: Virginia Block IV, Yasen M, Astute, Suffren/Barracuda are all ghosts under the water. China lags way behind here. Her newest boats in service the Type 93 Shang class and it still uses propellers and bow mounted torpedo tubes ie 1960's design cues that point to more noise and less hearing.
Comment
Comment