I think you are getting your belligerents capabilities very mixed up my friend. When the US and UK launched their 1000 bomber raids late in the war, they indeed used mutual support/layered defence. Particularly effective with (1) large numbers flying in close formation and (2) the use of heavy bombers that indeed did bristle with defensive machine guns. During the battle of Britain however, the Axis (read predominantly German) DID NOT have either bristling defensive machine guns or flew in waves to protect each other ie mutual support/layered defence (not in the manner which your apparently suggesting anyway). The Axis used 3 main types of bombers these being the light bomber Dornier Do 17, the medium bomber Heinkel He111 and the light bomber/fighter-bomber Ju88. You couldn't be further from the truth with your assertion that each bomber was bristling with defensive machine guns. While Wiki is no definitive authority on anything, it does provide hints of facts. Here is what that source suggests in terms of the Germans defensive armaments strength: Another constraint was imposed by the light armament carried by the Luftwaffe bombers. At the start of the battle they were still armed with an average of three hand held MG 15 light machine guns, which were supplied by 75 round "saddle" magazines. When faced with concentrated attacks by modern fighters such as the Hurricane and Spitfire this proved totally inadequate. Although many of the Luftwaffe gunners were well trained and capable of hitting a fast moving fighter the damage done was seldom enough to stop the attack in time to prevent heavy damage being done to the bomber. The high rate of fire of the MG 15 meant that the small magazines emptied quickly; the time taken to reload often gave a fighter the time it needed to make a successful attack. Efforts had been made to increase the number of defensive weapons, but this also meant that because the weapons were hand-held either more crew members were needed in each aircraft, or the existing crew members could be overworked. It was a problem which was never to be fully resolved and the Luftwaffe bombers had to rely on the ability of their fighters to protect their formations Here are a few more selective facts about the Battle of Britain (with emphasis on the German fighter protection for their lightly armed bombers): 1. Allied = 1,963 serviceable aircraft vs Axis 2,550 serviceable aircraft (from Wiki). Hardly massive outnumbering either. 2. Battle of Britain was not a one day aerial battle but was a 3 mth long campaign 3. The Axis bombers had the protection of friendly fighters for a very limited period of time while over British soil. With the prospect of running out of fuel, the German fighters often had to turn around and leave the aerial battlefield (and their bombers unprotected by fighters). 4. Allied fighter command had the flexibility of units selectively scrambling to best effect maximum strike against the less flexible incoming axis formations 5. Allied fighters had the ability to land, refueling and rearming in their fight (not to mention getting into another plane at a later date if shot down) against the heavier, slower German bombers, it was a veritable turkey shoot. If wiki is to be believed, "the turn-around time (re-arm and refuel) for the Spitfire was 26 minutes, while the Hurricane's was 9 minutes, which increased its effectiveness" Of course, the German fighters (predominantly ME109s) had NO ability to land, re-arm and refuel. 6. Among the fighters used by the Axis to provide limited effective protection, was the twin engined Bf 110. It was hardly more maneuverable than the bombers it escorted. 7. The German bombing campaign of Britain was flawed from the onset. But of course, the above facts don't fit neatly into the public myth so they are inconvenient truths.
Geez... are those still not up and running? I used to see them zipping bout the Sunny Coast quite often... but of course going for a quick flight and being combat ready are two different things entirely
I honestly never understood how military contracts ALWAYS end up being screwed up. I think "Military contract = being shot for messing it up" would be a good position to take. Edit to add: Always is an exaggeration, but hey it happens way too often and ends up costing the tax payers billions.
No no, I don't mean the guys in uniform, I mean the Government ministers and the Civilian contractors who make the money off screwing up. Capitalism is (in theory) built on the premise of "great risk = great reward" but in this case there is no risk and all reward. I'm simply saying that if you want to take billions of tax payers' dollars to provide something, and then screw it up and either require more money or not deliver what was agreed on then you will be at risk.
Not much chance of OZ being taken over. The worlds greatest war mongering tribe, couldnt beat a bunch of rice farmers last century, camel hearders this century. so i wouldn't worry to much. its just a protection rackett.
Now here is the plane we should have bought! The F22 Raptor Regards Errol 43[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-Sh1SAaJz0[/youtube]
Stackers, read all with interest and now my two bob's worth: The Luftwaffe was designed as close air support to the Wehrmacht. Bombing raids of the type used against the British were way outside their design specs. On the other side, the bombers used by the RAAF and USAAC were designed for bombing, not close air support. Yes, the Collins class had it's problems - we tried to do too much with them and cocked it up. But please bear in mind, the USN built 12 different LA class subs before they got it right and that was expected and budgeted for. THEN they starting building the "Improved" LA class. They then retrofitted the first 12. We tried to get it right from sub 1. Subs are excellent instruments for covertly collecting information and letting sneaky "good guys" off in areas where sleepy "bad guys" hang out. Yes, the people in uniform have little say over the equipment they play with and government civilians are very, very, very poor contract writers and let politics (and dare I say it - free lunches and tickets to various events) have a say far too often. Add that to "I get praise from the boss if the budget is low but the "capability" is high and you get SNAFU. We try to make a screwdriver drive screws, hammer nails, cut wood, hang wallpaper and take out the rubbish. Not usually a success. To succeed, the mission needs to be simple and clearly defined. All too often a simple, clearly defined mission is added to by bureaucrats and politicians (and yes, some idiots wearing a uniform) between identifying the need and drawing up the tender documents. And sometimes, the people in civilian clothing, refuse to listen to the people in uniform who say 'hang on, that won't work". But what do you expect from professional rulers? Oh and BTW, those subs the Indonesians bought? Haven't moved since they were delivered, except by tug.
I think all the bad press aout the F35 might be just pure propaganda to give us a tactical advantage.
I just want to note the US refuses to sell the F-22 as an alternative to anyone as Congress refuses to approve its export. Japan and Australia to rank high in the "trusted allies" category but not high enough to be able to buy even a stripped down version of the F-22. Not sure the F-22 would be entirely appropriate for Australia's defence needs anyway.
Now lets talk Australian subs..So we need a new one...Why not buy this one..Even the Yanks know its good! :| Regards Errol 43[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoMj1TjNTFw[/youtube]
The Collins has done the same thing, and the Oberon class subs before them. They take photographs of nuclear aircraft carrier propellers as trophies while playing red force in exercises. The operating methods of technologically advanced but numerically inferior nations like the Swedish and us usually leads to small expensive units doing things very, very well. There just aren't many of them and operating procedures do not allow for any loss for attrition. The subs/planes/infantry etc need to get in and out alive. As opposed to the enemies the US Navy especially trains to defeat - overwhelming numbers of inferior subs/planes etc from the Soviets or Chinese or any nation operating on a ratio of forces where they pitch 8:1 or higher. That is 8 elements to defeat one enemy. Western nations have much lower rations. To visualise this, Soviet army units would attack with about a 8:1 ratio, I recall. That's sending 8 squadrons of tanks vs 1 enemy squadron. Western ratios are about 3:1.
Did you know that both the Gotland and the Collins are from the same designers (Kockums) and the Collins is also recognised as world class? The Collins is a much bigger vessel compared to the Gotland capable of much longer range. The Gotland is principally for short range operations near the coast (which is very suitable for Sweden) while the Collins is also capable of long range open ocean operations lasting over two months (in a much more comfortable environment for the crew than previous subs).
Better than the F22??? Russian planes have doing these moves for years. Bordsilver.. What about operational hours? Our collins class subs have a poor record in this regard. Regards Errol 43
Have a look at the Sukhoi 35 Regards Errol 43[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0eUnHZ7iL0[/youtube]
Absolutely no idea sorry. BTW I'm not trying to justify their existence (which was purely a politically-forced decision), but pointing out that they were a unique solution that was actually very ground breaking in many ways and that there simply wasn't an off the shelf equivalent.
Pentagon Pain: F-35 stealth fighter jet 'one of worst planes we've ever designed' [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idVY2KumIcA[/youtube]
To answer the question on "why" planes and subs, and tanks. Planes shoot down enemy planes, and subs sink enemy ships. simple as that. Just having them means that the peace lovers up north have to factor in the opposition and what that opposition can do. Same with tanks, if they ever manage to get ashore here, they have to have a capability to counter those tanks, which usually means another tank! OC
