remnantprep
Senior Member
People do not exist for the sake of governments!
Posts: 4,399
Likes: 3,968
Email: remnant@ausprep.org
|
Post by remnantprep on Nov 25, 2014 9:14:01 GMT 10
|
|
overlord
Senior Member
Posts: 614
Likes: 720
|
Post by overlord on Nov 25, 2014 11:32:51 GMT 10
That reef is actually ours (Philippines) within our EEZ which we call "Kagitingan" (Valor, in english). Our government is paying more attention to positioning for the 2016 Presidential elections that they are not bothering with the above issue which is sad because at the rate china is occupying reefs, very soon, they may put up a base right here in our country and we would not even know it.
They are actually positioning themselves on both the South and East as a means to gain better access to shipping lanes, oil and gas, and fishing resources. Plus, being able to defend it against "those who threaten their sovereignty"...
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Nov 25, 2014 11:57:57 GMT 10
A question for those with an understanding of current military aviation strategy:
How relevant are bombers today? Wouldn't long range missiles be harder to detect, faster, and less risky to flight personnel? Also, I wouldn't want to have to guess on long-term costings as I'm not familiar with missiles and aircraft.
There would definitely be a benefit to having airbases in strategic positions, if for no other reasons than maintaining a regional presence and having somewhere from which to launch offensive & defensive weaponry.
Obviously there is a purpose if they're still being designed and built, but I've often wondered about this.
|
|
remnantprep
Senior Member
People do not exist for the sake of governments!
Posts: 4,399
Likes: 3,968
Email: remnant@ausprep.org
|
Post by remnantprep on Nov 25, 2014 17:36:16 GMT 10
"There would definitely be a benefit to having airbases in strategic positions, if for no other reasons than maintaining a regional presence and having somewhere from which to launch offensive & defensive weaponry."
I feel you hit the nail on the head there Mr Pete! I wonder as well about the cost of bombers versus long range weapons?
|
|
|
Post by You Must Enter A Name on Nov 25, 2014 19:56:30 GMT 10
Bombers are better able to attack an incoming fleet. Aircraft can carry out reconnaissance and deploy soldiers as well as utilize much cheaper deployment methods for smaller payloads. Just my thoughts but I am a civilian.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Nov 25, 2014 20:08:42 GMT 10
Fair call, but I would've thought that a bomber would present a more susceptible target to ships' defences. I also would've expected a missile to be cheaper for smaller payloads; when many bombs would need dropping a bomber would prove cheaper.
I think there are so many factors that we'd need to hear from someone with a background in the air force. All the military folks I know are army/navy.
|
|
|
Post by You Must Enter A Name on Nov 25, 2014 20:28:58 GMT 10
I though those small missiles with small payloads had a limited range and at greater distance lower accuracy, unless deployed by something that can get in closer. Having said that 30 years no one would have predicted North Korea would develop an ICBM that could reach us, look at the situation now.
Hell technology is moving to fast for me Sir Pete.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Nov 25, 2014 20:42:21 GMT 10
Hell technology is moving to fast for me Sir Pete. Damn straight.
|
|
stubbs
Full Member
Posts: 63
Likes: 89
|
Post by stubbs on Nov 25, 2014 21:05:05 GMT 10
Definately a strange one, i couldnt see it being built as to launch any major attacks from as you can launch a Nuke from Sub's and Warships now days that could get alot closer. It's a bit of a stab in the dark here but do you think it may have something to do with the new trade aggrement we have just signed with China and they want to protect their Merchant ships when leaving Aussie waters? I'm not sure what trade route they take or what the Pirate situation is like but i just couldnt see it being built to launch any major military attack ? ..and it also states they havent built it in secret.
|
|
|
Post by You Must Enter A Name on Nov 25, 2014 21:11:09 GMT 10
Good insight Stubbs, that seems very plausible indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Fractus on Nov 25, 2014 21:14:06 GMT 10
Years ago I remember hearing a defence minister (can't remember who) say any country that was intending to attack Australia would be identified well before they were ready as they would have to build fleet of troop ships or that was the gist of it.. So maybe building in plain site is the best camo and the ground work is set if ever required.
|
|
|
Post by pheniox17 on Nov 25, 2014 22:08:35 GMT 10
Lmao!!!!
That's 1 way fully fueled trip on paper, dose the paper count the extra weight of weapons?? And you would want that bomber to return, crews and planes are expensive.....
So to the report the bomber can hit Darwin and crash land in the Indian ocean....
If China develops a better aircraft carrier and can do air to air refueling like the USA then China can provide some support to a ground assault here...
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Nov 25, 2014 22:20:10 GMT 10
Or is it likely that China will own half of Australia by then anyway and just use the airstrip for refuelling halfway? Will a treaty between Australia and China be signed, allowing Chinese military installations on Australian mainland (much like we currently have agreements with the USA)? Will WWIII be started on Australian soil? I hope not, and I doubt it. I certainly don't know.
I also don't know what madness politicians will sign up to if they can [personally] benefit from it...
|
|
stubbs
Full Member
Posts: 63
Likes: 89
|
Post by stubbs on Nov 25, 2014 22:43:01 GMT 10
Or is it likely that China will own half of Australia by then anyway and just use the airstrip for refuelling halfway? Will a treaty between Australia and China be signed, allowing Chinese military installations on Australian mainland (much like we currently have agreements with the USA)? Will WWIII be started on Australian soil? I hope not, and I doubt it. I certainly don't know. I also don't know what madness politicians will sign up to if they can [personally] benefit from it... My thoughts exactly Mr Pete, refulling only !, and we soon will have to buy back goods from China at tripple the cost that where originaly grown and exported from Oz anyway
|
|