Jump to content

Australia to Get Nuclear Submarines


Adam_S
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 10/6/2021 at 12:13 PM, Simon Tan said:

Why would Singapore pick a fight with PRC?


Why assume Singapore has any choice the matter and China isn't the one picking the fight? 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

13 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I think you will find that no one, except maybe the Russians around Moscow, have air defenses that can stop jack shit in terms of stand off missile attacks.

I honestly don't know if Singapore can do jack against stand off missile strike, but they do have the thickest standing SAM defence network in the region, and on par with any in the world. Singapore knows it has exactly ZERO margin in any conflict and has been preparing itself accordingly since independence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Argus said:

I don't disagree with your wider remarks futon. But I think in this line you highlight our fundamental disagreement. 

We are simply viewing the situation at two different levels of analysis.  Yes on one level the two situations (late 1800's, early 2000's) are very different IN DETAIL, as is only reasonable to expect they would be for half a hundred reasons. Time moves on, technology, the whole axis of world power, all has changed in span of a centaury.  

But to broaden the view and step back a little, the two cases are not that different, because while the details have changed, the fundamental conditions have not. The physical geography has not changed, and if the political geography has changed regionally. China is still in roughly the same size/shape/place, and concerned with the same border zones. For example control of Formosa still matters because; stealth aircraft or sailing junk, European or Asian, Colonial power or Pirate -  the island is still a brilliant base to influence trade up and down the mainland coast of Asia and communications between Japan and places south. So if China is of a mood to care about the sea, Formosa is always going to be point of importance regardless of the finer detail of the situation. 

These are not details. These are the basics. The change of territorial boundaries and privileges granted by unequal treaties to outsiders is nor just details. Had dynamic of of the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s of stable boundary and generally unchanging status of privileges been the status of the 1800s, the Qing would not have gone through tumoul. The Bakufu would still be in rule. And the Joseon dynasty would be in its status as well, all three of those into the 1900s. 

For someone capable of large and well-thought out post to not recognize that those are not details but rather basics turns rhe warning lights on. Hence "dumbed down nationalism" for which cause, ah yes, back to asserting a Pro-AUKUS agenda. 

*Yawn* z z z z 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Singapore has no reason for belligerence with PRC. Nor the reverse. It is only because Singapore has bad influencers that it might get involved. Singapore is not an extension of Angolsaxonia, even if it has many in Holland V.  

Edited by Simon Tan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Not to derail the thread, but you realize that the spell "augmentation" on mobile devices isn't done on the local device, but in the datacenter of the device manufacturer's choosing. IOW, you voluntarily activate a keylogger that transmits everything that you type to a third party.

And for the record, Kindle, "algoryithm" is not a word.

No, that was just spelling error, because I couldnt be arsed to check a word I hadnt used in something like 2 decades.  :)

I can rest assured its not performed in Cheltenham GCHQ. if it was, it would probably work properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Simon Tan said:

Amazon servers are simply being hacked by Sino-Russian cyberwarfare divisions.

Seems they put one of those divisions covertly -but not very much- in the Cottswolds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, TrustMe said:

I agree with you on most parts. The US has never been on the receiving end of an air strike since the Korean war (although friendly fire has happened) and I believe that the US has been complacent about air defence.

  We must account also  for the possibility that Biden's military reforms, by focusing on social issues rather than fighting capacity, have degraded to some degree the capacity for friendly forces to take heavy casualties and continue to function.

 

Quote

In air base terms Iraqi, in 1991, had massive airbases with multiple runways, some taxi ways were capable of launching aircraft and they could also use the roads leading to the airbase (Iraq tried to use these roads to launch an Mirage F1 in 2003 but the plane bounced after hitting some debris and blew up). US air bases aren't like Iraq's.

I think dispersal and camouflage will be vital.  But you can't disperse on small islands like Okinawa, and you can be concealed and maintain a high sortie tempo rate at the same time.  Many potential air field sites, (Philippines for example) will be in places where security will be no better than at Kabul in the final days.  Except that the Taliban did not have sophisticaed loitering drone munitions and missiles.    Long and short of it is that I think US airpower will be hard to deploy at peak tempo.

 

Quote

The thing about aircraft is that they can very rapidly move around the globe and also between different air bases. In a conflict a CAP would be positioned at likely avenues of air attack ( in 1990 after Iraq invaded Kuwait US / Saudi F15's ran multiple  CAP's   24 hours a day 7 days a week from August 1990 to February 1991).

Right, but CAP requires high tempo operations and lots of ELINT, satellite and AWACS support.  China's J-20's presumably can (and will) ignore the F-22's use their stealth to go right past them and paste the AWACS and ELINT support.  And the tankers.   Once these are degraded the airfields are a shooting gallery.  On the flip side, the types of aircraft that the Chinese fly that Stuart disparages as antiques, (like the TU-16 derivative H-6) tend to have excellent range characteristics.  And, China is huge with a loyal population base.  Those TU-16's can sit well back from the coast and dispersed to protect themselves from attack on the ground.  F-22's and F-35's are stealthy enough to evade attack, but not stealthy enough that radar support can't fix their general location, (meaning, for the H-6, they can know where they are not long enough to fire their standoff missiles.)

Quote

In terms of cruise missiles. The US though has badly underfunded this area. The Patriot SAM systems (except for anti ballistic missiles defence) was useless as evident in the Iranian cruise missile attack on a refinery in Saudia Arabia two years ago when the cruise missiles got threw successfully. This is changing, with the US funding anti cruise missile SAM systems, but Russia has more experience in this field given that the US Tomahawk LACM would be used against them in a potential war.

IMO, the IAF has been handing Russia, (and therefore China) a goldmine of information on cruise missile defense in Syria.  This site has had posters gloating about this IAF air raid or that, but the big picture is that the Russian military complex developing modern air defense has never had a testing ground better than what it has now.  And, all that expertise is available for sale to China, (which has bought the S-400 and no doubt will buy the S-500 when available).  

 

Quote

To sum up basically, they can't defend there airbases from cruise missile attack but would probably stop an airstrike unless it was of the one way suicide raid type of attack.

Looks right, but I would think air attacks will be of the stealth, drone, or stand off missile variety.  Like what the IAF does in Syria.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Argus said:


Why assume Singapore has any choice the matter and China isn't the one picking the fight? 

 

Because for China the more neutral countries the better.  The more Asian countries that go in with the US, the worse its prospects are in any war.  China would want Asia to be neutral until after the Americans have been sent on their way.  Then, they can do what they want?

Quote

I honestly don't know if Singapore can do jack against stand off missile strike, but they do have the thickest standing SAM defence network in the region, and on par with any in the world. Singapore knows it has exactly ZERO margin in any conflict and has been preparing itself accordingly since independence. 

The Syrians have some very nice S-300 batteries that have proven completely useless at stopping air attacks because the missile flight profiles of targets in reach are outside their technical capacity to engage, (ie, either too stealthy or flying too low).  No conventional IAF aircraft enter the S-300 kill zone, (no need to), and the F-35's that presumably do are too stealthy for the S-300 to see.  Ergo, Singapore's AD establishment might be useless too.

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming the PRC are actually thinking, and not flailing about in a mixture of pissiness and nationalism. They could easily have made Australia go to sleep, kept buying up its assets and politicians. Instead they threatened it. You dont need to be an expert of history to recognise threatening Australians doesnt end well, whether its cricket or politics.

So yes, could entirely believe they would set Singapore off. It would set the seal on whats been a bumper 2 years of PRC fuckups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post Glenn, were on the same page of thinking. 

In terms of Singapore, their military is based on the Israeli model. Small standing armed forces with lots of aircraft, with large reserve forces to fight a larger ground battle with tactics of the 'All Out Preemptive Attack' .

But they are also investing in an amphibious capability with new LHD's. All I can assume, is that they feel that they need more offensive naval forces in the area.

Maybe someone from Singapore could inform us more.

Edited by TrustMe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

Great post Glenn, were on the same page of thinking. 

Yeah, overall I just can't shake the impression that this is just not going to go anywhere.  I see Chinese planes around Taiwan and such, but the whole thing feels a bit manufactured on both sides.  The idea of an actual war just seems so mind bogglingly stupid for everyone.

Quote

In terms of Singapore, their military is based on the Israeli model. Small standing armed forces with lots of aircraft, with large reserve forces to fight a larger ground battle with tactics of the 'All Out Preemptive Attack' .

Quite impressive armed forces, actually.  Bigger mobilized strength than I would have imagined.   

Quote

But they are also investing in an amphibious capability with new LHD's. All I can assume, is that they feel that they need more offensive naval forces in the area.

I guess it makes sense to emphasize that given where they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

Maybe someone from Singapore could inform us more.

There is such someone, kinda, already posting in this thread. Not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sunday said:

There is such someone, kinda, already posting in this thread. Not me.

In my more cynical moments, I feel that this person is crafting his internet persona quite carefully to avoid upsetting the big boys with the expectation that they will "win" in his lifetime and probably already have a social score for him and all his compatriots with ancient (or even recent) links to the Middle Kingdom.

It doesn't hurt to avoid gratuitously irritating the people you may have to deal with later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, DB said:

In my more cynical moments, I feel that this person is crafting his internet persona quite carefully to avoid upsetting the big boys with the expectation that they will "win" in his lifetime and probably already have a social score for him and all his compatriots with ancient (or even recent) links to the Middle Kingdom.

It doesn't hurt to avoid gratuitously irritating the people you may have to deal with later.

Well, if he wants, he has the smarts to do so, thing that could not be said of many other members of this Grate Sight - like that one that thought Maxx was a sock puppet of Tony Evans, for instance.

Would he want to do so? I do not know, but after historical facts like your country leaving Hong Kong to the tender mercies of Commie China, and the successive acts of treachery of US governments against their local supporters, as seen in Vietnam, Irak, Afghanistan, etc., some kind of future proofing would be sensible.

Do not forget, either, that this person with the name beginning with "S" and ending in "n", belongs to a discriminated minority in his home country, but truly discriminated, not like Muslims, Jews or blacks in the UK or the USA.

You may want also to consider what kind of resistance did the only metropolitan UK territories occupied in WWII, the Channel Islands, offer to the German invaders.

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...