Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[StingrayOZ]

IMO China and Australia aren't really likely to fight each other in the near term. We really have nothing to fight about.

What is more likely is to compete for influence and diplomatic power in SEA and the Pacific. Australia wants to ensure that China doesn't acquire any bases in the oceanic region and preferably none in the SEA region beyond what it already has. Its about getting to and holding the high ground.

For that you have to be credible and have real credible capability. We have multiple states looking at becoming nations at risk. West Pupua has increasing frequency of violent events. PNG seems to be on a knife edge. What happens when 65 year old Frank retires as democratic dictator of Fiji is unclear, Bougainville has its independence issues, as does New Caledonia. Malaysia has the worlds oldest elected leader and is on the verge of a failed state. Philippines has a large range of issues.

Even as Australia and the US are on the same side, we are likely to have very difference approaches to regional security, regional capability building and regional alliances. Australia also is more likely to find a positive relationship and position with China in the region, as we aren't polar opposites.

Our amphibious capability is a key way Australia can tangibly help other nations. not just in HDAR, but through incorporating and operating with other nations in a more peer/joint focused way. Something that has been very clear since the acquisition of the LHD's is that the region sees Australia building such capability is a very positive thing.

 

[t68]

Just floating around the internet and stumbled across this, not sure what the date was when it was put up appears you have to sign in to view the comments section as I cant open that section to see the reaction at the time.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-australia-buy-f-35b-lhd-andrew-serchen/

Its interesting as he views it from the perspective of a F111 replacement capability, and not a mixed fleet defence CAS capability for a amphibious task force, I think he misses the point of a small amount of B's bring to the task group as a whole.


I concur with his finding looking at it from the prism of a long range bomber replacement, using the LHD is not VfM as only having two hulls takes away from core role of the LHD nor can it sustain itself as a fleet carrier, Spaz should be able to give us some insights on how Melbourne R21 conducted CAP patrol and the mix of aircraft aboard R21,was R21 ever expected to be a secondary strike carrier? From images I have seen the most amount of A4's was approx. 10 airframes at the most plus the Trackers and so-fourth.



But I also see a capability cap in our doctrine(LHD) and its just not related to fixed wing but rotary as well, the reason that R21 accomplished so much was that it's aircraft and aircrew all worked together on routine deployments using all aircraft to the FAA which provided the foundation for all continuous collective training for which all military operations become second nature hence the FAA raison d'être

 

[StingrayOZ]

I disagree with some of the points in that link. Not exactly that what is being said is wrong, but that it is a very limited view of the possibilities.

- Most of the F-35 advantages over historic aircraft is in systems and sensors. The fact that the F-35B is slight more acrobatically limited is not a significant issue in real terms. Particularly when compared to other carrier or long ranged aircraft. The UK looked at this in detail between A B and C models.
- A single LHD probably would struggle with 24hr CAP. But is that required? If we have wedgetails and P8's and JORN and Sat and UAV's and long range missiles like sm-6 and JSM/NSM, is it really required to have a continuous fighter presence or is a level of readiness sufficient? Also what is the land based RAAF assets doing while everyone else is flat out. It could be assumed that land based aircraft would fill in the gaps regarding presence. While they would find that difficult, and it would probably limit our regional reach, involve a lot more per patrol flight hour, it would still be significant and doable.
- Our amphibious capability isn't based just around a single LHD. We already have two and a LSD.
-$500 million per LHD upgrade, we might as well buy two new ships.

A larger LHD with the capability to hangar 4 more F-35's and deck 2-3 more would probably be able to offer 24 hr CAP, as a single unit. At least for short periods (weeks). Acquiring a 4th squadron of F-35B's doesn't suddenly eliminate our existing 3 squadrons of F-35A's. It just means we can preposition one squadron much closer to where ever we want them.

I think it is problematic to think of embarking F-35b's on a LHD as a R21 replacement with 60's doctrine and CONOPs. Its more like adding more capability to the systems, than a single unit doing everything. We won't be embarking trackers. That sort of capability can effectively be provided by long ranged land based aircraft, enough for countries like Australia and Japan at least. Carrier aircraft won't be operating alone as navy, but as some RAAF embeded on the ship.

But again it comes down to how much capability we need.

If you want a full strike carrier, able to project power on the other side of the planet, able to conduct operations similar to a USN carrier, look at a QE class. It will warp the ADF budget and manpower.

If you just want some carrier capability to enhance your reach, regional sea control, fill the air gap, help out with allied missions, give coverage from and over your further flung possessions and bases, then a much more modest capability can do that.

Or are we happy with just looking at within our EEZ of the continent, the neighbors can look after themselves and cut a deal with either the US (who is openly telling everyone to get fucked, maybe make your own nukes) or China (who has the power and the money but will want your foreign policy to match theirs).

 

[SpazSinbad]

Good reply - it has been awhile (when published) that I have read that 'Serchen' screed. I guess I should read it again. At the time it was determined that the chap had been a SWO Surface Warfare Officer perhaps not aviation based (I have forgotten now) but that may be relevant to see his point of view. Anyway I like the last reply because it forgoes the past to concentrate on what we have now - THE NETWORK. IF the RAAF are going to HELP supply Fleet Defence, along with the other ADF assets, then let me (as others have done) suggest a small number of F-35Bs on LHDs (when/as required) plug into that network. With the help of the other assets they can be on alert to launch as required to provide long range networking close to intended target because - STEALTH. IF the other assets are appropriately networked they can see what the F-35B sees (which can be phenomenal - but I digress). Just concentrating on the idea that ONLY some F-35Bs provide some form of Fleet Defence is not on. Remember the F-35B will provide target data for the BIG BOY assets.

Yes a long time ago now MELBOURNE the carrier provided ASW with some Fleet Defence initially. When A4G numbers doubled then VF-805 numbers doubled (once increased to ten as noted) to also include whatever else was required by the task group. The A4G was a day fighter with no air to air radar - only the ships provided 'fighter direction'; which in my experience they were good doing so. MELBOURNE was not a CVN or an ATTACK carrier so no one needs to think along those lines; nor hanker after such a capability today.

 

[Todjaeger]

I disagree with some of the points in that link. Not exactly that what is being said is wrong, but that it is a very limited view of the possibilities.

- Most of the F-35 advantages over historic aircraft is in systems and sensors. The fact that the F-35B is slight more acrobatically limited is not a significant issue in real terms. Particularly when compared to other carrier or long ranged aircraft. The UK looked at this in detail between A B and C models.
- A single LHD probably would struggle with 24hr CAP. But is that required? If we have wedgetails and P8's and JORN and Sat and UAV's and long range missiles like sm-6 and JSM/NSM, is it really required to have a continuous fighter presence or is a level of readiness sufficient? Also what is the land based RAAF assets doing while everyone else is flat out. It could be assumed that land based aircraft would fill in the gaps regarding presence. While they would find that difficult, and it would probably limit our regional reach, involve a lot more per patrol flight hour, it would still be significant and doable.
- Our amphibious capability isn't based just around a single LHD. We already have two and a LSD.
-$500 million per LHD upgrade, we might as well buy two new ships.

A larger LHD with the capability to hangar 4 more F-35's and deck 2-3 more would probably be able to offer 24 hr CAP, as a single unit. At least for short periods (weeks). Acquiring a 4th squadron of F-35B's doesn't suddenly eliminate our existing 3 squadrons of F-35A's. It just means we can preposition one squadron much closer to where ever we want them.

I think it is problematic to think of embarking F-35b's on a LHD as a R21 replacement with 60's doctrine and CONOPs. Its more like adding more capability to the systems, than a single unit doing everything. We won't be embarking trackers. That sort of capability can effectively be provided by long ranged land based aircraft, enough for countries like Australia and Japan at least. Carrier aircraft won't be operating alone as navy, but as some RAAF embeded on the ship.

But again it comes down to how much capability we need.

If you want a full strike carrier, able to project power on the other side of the planet, able to conduct operations similar to a USN carrier, look at a QE class. It will warp the ADF budget and manpower.

If you just want some carrier capability to enhance your reach, regional sea control, fill the air gap, help out with allied missions, give coverage from and over your further flung possessions and bases, then a much more modest capability can do that.

Or are we happy with just looking at within our EEZ of the continent, the neighbors can look after themselves and cut a deal with either the US (who is openly telling everyone to get fucked, maybe make your own nukes) or China (who has the power and the money but will want your foreign policy to match theirs).

And the above still misses the weight of numbers required to actually enable a capability to be delivered consistently.

The current two LHD's and single LSD are required to provide at least a single amphibious vessel that is either on operations, or available to be sent on operations. Australia's amphibious capability is based around the three vessels together being able to provide at least a single vessel, with the potential for a surge deployment of an additional vessel.

Assuming one of the two LHD's was available when a deployment was called for, then yes, F-35B's could potentially be embarked (assuming some mods were done to the LHD) however, the F-35B's would come at the expense of either embarked helicopters, vehicles, or quite possibly both. That would in turn put limitations on both the size/capability of the embarked amphibious force, as well as the ability of the vessel to actually land and then support the embarked troops and vehicles.

All the above is also assuming that the training streams could be maintained so that RAN, Army and if decided either RAAF or RAN FAA fixed-wing personnel have the opportunity to build experience in performing their roles aboard and from an LHD. By way of an example of the need for training, the current amphibious conops for the LHD operations is that there can be eight embarked medium helicopters, with landing spots so that six can be taking off, landing, or getting prepped at essentially the same time without interfering with each other. Given that only the aft aircraft elevator (the one in the middle of the flight deck by the stern) is rated to handle helicopters of the size and weight of a CH-47 Chinook, which at MTOW is close to the MTOW of an F-35B, and the need for a loaded F-35B to use the ski jump to take off, then those six helicopter landing spots would need to be empty when launching F-35B's. If there were still any embarked helicopters, planning for air ops would need to be done so that the F-35B's and helicopters are not conflicting with each other in terms of flight deck, hangar, or aircraft elevator space.

Given that the RAN only has two LHD's, and the training seems to have revolved around landing troops and vehicles using the four embarked landing craft in the well dock, as well as using helicopters to land additional personnel and cargo, either an entirely new amphibious conops would need to be developed which would incorporate F-35B operations into the amphibious operations and replace the current conops, or two or more new amphibious assets would need to be acquired which can also support F-35B operations.

For those who think the F-35B operations might just be a one-off event and therefore no additional assets are needed since the amphibious elements can just not be embarked if not needed, those elements would still need to engage in period operations or training to maintain the skills required for effective amphibious operations. If one LHD is undergoing maintenance, while another is "playing" aircraft carrier, the troops that would normally expect to work from or be embarked on an LHD are going to start suffering skill atrophy. In fact, the RAN and ADF are IMO really kind of pushing it as it currently is, with just two LHD's given the maintenance, training and operations cycles. And no, the LSD does not 'fill in' for either LHD with regards to maintaining skills, given the greater emphasis the LSD has on vehicle as opposed to personnel lift and landing.

As a further note, some of these arguments or justifications for embarked F-35B's really seem to have gone out on a limb in terms of vignette assumptions IMO. For instance, the area the RAN task force is operating in is outside the practical effective range of land-based RAAF and/or friendly fighter coverage, no friendly carrier-bourne fighter coverage is available, and yet it is within range of RAAF Wedgetail and/or Poseidon coverage (with or without AAR being required). If the scenario is supposed to be based around some sort of conflict or intervention in the SCS, then one also has to consider the very real possibility that neither Wedgetail or Poseidon support would be available. For one thing, the RAAF could be denied overflight permission for military aircraft, or forced to fly a very long way 'around' various national space claims. For another, the RAAF only has six Wedgetails in inventory, and seven KC-30's, with such small aircraft fleets, sustaining a supporting presence for a distant RAN task force would rapidly become quite difficult.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Given your exaggerations about 'skill atrophy' I'm wondering how (for example) MELBOURNE R21 managed all those years ago. There was no room to swing a bobtail cat on that deck. I'll guess a lightly (internal missiles) loaded F-35B will take less that 400 feet including ski jump to get airborne (it is borne not BOURNE - that is JASON). All along I think we build the case for a third LHD that many have mentioned. IF it is not forthcoming then the fully amphibious twin LHDs go nowhere FAST some of the time. So be it. Let us hope they can all swim.

 

[t68]

I think we all can agree that if the AusGov/ ADF wants to project power at distance from Australia that 1 perhaps 2 additional vessels will be needed, and that maybe a modified Canberra is the go.

Italy will have both a carrier with secondary amphibious capability and perhaps the new LHD with secondary carrier capability how does that impact conops if the RAN went down that route.

 

[hairyman]

The Japanese Azumi is it? That they are modifying for F35B use. Would'nt they be the better option for the RAN? Although if we bought Japanese it would upset the Chinese, but should that stop us?

 

[StingrayOZ]

There is no doubt that acquiring and operating F-35B's off a LHD, even a third LHD will possibly limit amphibious capability. Not just in an operational case, but in training and developing and maintaining that amphibious capability.

Really if you want a proper amphibious force you are looking at a more capable LHD in combination to the two we have, keeping Choules and some LCH together as a proper amphibious squadron, a phibron, and we would be surging all of that all at the same time at the high end. With more normal deployments of portions occurring almost continuously. The JC1 design isn't designed from the outset for battalion deployment, and we want brigade numbers (well amphibious ready group) capability. Hence why we need multiple LHD's to give that level of capability.

So any carrier would be on top of that. Even then, with only one carrier, availability, upgrades, flexibility, operational deployment and training would suffer as well. Those carriers would also likely have to have some sort of amphibious capability to fill in to make the ARG amphibious capability more robust. So in an ideal world, that would be 3 LHD's, 2 large specific carriers. UK can't or haven't supported that. France can't or haven't done that. Both have made some compromises. So I think that is very unrealistic, even in a war time scenario with a very large budget and unlimited man power.

However I think with a 3rd LHD, it becomes possible to build some capability in this area. But trying to deploy amphibious capability and carrier capability at the same time would still be impossible, by ourselves. Heck even maintaining an amphibious deployment with 3 LHD would be limited. But with allies, you could mix and match what is available. We would also have the key assets to train and operate with our regional allies. The US could split its capability and then countries like the Uk, Aus or Japan could fill the other half. Also, I think this is more important, we could lead full spectrum missions.

As for the regional projection capability, I can try to make it a bit clearer what I am sort of talking about.

So taking Tindal, Christmas Island, Lombrum and Butterworth, drawing 2000km radius circles around them and using that as a point of discussion. Given the range of P8's and wedge-tails, and that they can be be based at each of those airfields, but air refuelled from assets based at other bases, I think 2000km is a broad approximate. As you mentioned, there would be issues projecting through airspaces, and the capability at the extreme of that 2000km would be much less than something more in the centre. Sustaining deployment would also be troublesome as mentioned. But I guess if we are narrowing down the sort of regions realistically we want or could operate a LHD (either as Amphibs or as a light carrier in any even mildly contested environment other than HDAR) then that would be it.



This would all be part of a larger plan. So maybe we do have a Queen Elizabeth Carrier based out of Perth. Maybe the US has more regular LHD rotations through Australia. Both of which would also help assist with our amphibious issues as well. Maybe there is an avenue that Australia and India can find cooperation on. Maybe Japan would be interested as well.

What I really see as essential going forward is another LHD, with some improvements.

IMO it makes a lot of sense for it to be based off the JC1 design we already have 2 examples of. There is nothing wrong AFAIK with the Italian or Japanese ships. But neither is in service in an unmodified form. I would expect nations like Australia would love to closely study those ships, and benchmark where an improve JC1 would be in relation to those ships.

The main issues with the Japanese ship is man power IMO. But again, it needs to be clear what level they are going for and what comes out at the end.

 

[oldsig127]

The Japanese Azumi is it? That they are modifying for F35B use. Would'nt they be the better option for the RAN? Although if we bought Japanese it would upset the Chinese, but should that stop us?

Izumo. Only 400 troops. Limited light vehicles, no well deck all to be transferred by air. Whatever advantages they ave, it is a pretty poor option to replace a third *real* LHD.

As ever, depends on CONOPS, and ultimately on the political and diplomatic requirements of the GoTD and not on choosing scenarios in which it'd be desirable or crucial to have a light carrier rather than a third LHD.

oldsig

 

[SpazSinbad]

Earlier above 'Todjaeger' said this:

"...Given that only the aft aircraft elevator (the one in the middle of the flight deck by the stern) is rated to handle helicopters of the size and weight of a CH-47 Chinook, which at MTOW is close to the MTOW of an F-35B, and the need for a loaded F-35B to use the ski jump to take off, then those six helicopter landing spots would need to be empty when launching F-35B's. If there were still any embarked helicopters, planning for air ops would need to be done so that the F-35B's and helicopters are not conflicting with each other in terms of flight deck, hangar, or aircraft elevator space...."

A knowledgeable e-mail correspondent says this (amongst other things) by way of reply:

"Actually the LHD fwd lift is size and weight OK for F35Bs - they were designed for it. MTOW of F-35B re lift is irrelevant - they're [F-35B] fuelled and armed on the flight deck, not the hangar. Air staff have successfully moved RW and STOVL a/c around flight decks for both launch and recovery cycles since first trials in Bulwark in 1966 and the first embarked Harriers in LPH Inchon in 1975 - not an issue. People do this for a living, ya know!?"

 

[hauritz]

There is no doubt that acquiring and operating F-35B's off a LHD, even a third LHD will possibly limit amphibious capability. Not just in an operational case, but in training and developing and maintaining that amphibious capability.

Really if you want a proper amphibious force you are looking at a more capable LHD in combination to the two we have, keeping Choules and some LCH together as a proper amphibious squadron, a phibron, and we would be surging all of that all at the same time at the high end. With more normal deployments of portions occurring almost continuously. The JC1 design isn't designed from the outset for battalion deployment, and we want brigade numbers (well amphibious ready group) capability. Hence why we need multiple LHD's to give that level of capability.

So any carrier would be on top of that. Even then, with only one carrier, availability, upgrades, flexibility, operational deployment and training would suffer as well. Those carriers would also likely have to have some sort of amphibious capability to fill in to make the ARG amphibious capability more robust. So in an ideal world, that would be 3 LHD's, 2 large specific carriers. UK can't or haven't supported that. France can't or haven't done that. Both have made some compromises. So I think that is very unrealistic, even in a war time scenario with a very large budget and unlimited man power.

However I think with a 3rd LHD, it becomes possible to build some capability in this area. But trying to deploy amphibious capability and carrier capability at the same time would still be impossible, by ourselves. Heck even maintaining an amphibious deployment with 3 LHD would be limited. But with allies, you could mix and match what is available. We would also have the key assets to train and operate with our regional allies. The US could split its capability and then countries like the Uk, Aus or Japan could fill the other half. Also, I think this is more important, we could lead full spectrum missions.

As for the regional projection capability, I can try to make it a bit clearer what I am sort of talking about.

So taking Tindal, Christmas Island, Lombrum and Butterworth, drawing 2000km radius circles around them and using that as a point of discussion. Given the range of P8's and wedge-tails, and that they can be be based at each of those airfields, but air refuelled from assets based at other bases, I think 2000km is a broad approximate. As you mentioned, there would be issues projecting through airspaces, and the capability at the extreme of that 2000km would be much less than something more in the centre. Sustaining deployment would also be troublesome as mentioned. But I guess if we are narrowing down the sort of regions realistically we want or could operate a LHD (either as Amphibs or as a light carrier in any even mildly contested environment other than HDAR) then that would be it.

View attachment 46408

This would all be part of a larger plan. So maybe we do have a Queen Elizabeth Carrier based out of Perth. Maybe the US has more regular LHD rotations through Australia. Both of which would also help assist with our amphibious issues as well. Maybe there is an avenue that Australia and India can find cooperation on. Maybe Japan would be interested as well.

What I really see as essential going forward is another LHD, with some improvements.

IMO it makes a lot of sense for it to be based off the JC1 design we already have 2 examples of. There is nothing wrong AFAIK with the Italian or Japanese ships. But neither is in service in an unmodified form. I would expect nations like Australia would love to closely study those ships, and benchmark where an improve JC1 would be in relation to those ships.

The main issues with the Japanese ship is man power IMO. But again, it needs to be clear what level they are going for and what comes out at the end.

I think there is also a bigger picture here. Australia's two strongest allies are operating F-35Bs and it sounds like the Japanese are also about to join that club. At the very least we should be able to offer a cross-decking capability to them.

If Australia were to acquire F-35Bs there is also the possibility that they could operate from American and British ships as well as our own LHDs. This would effectively allow Australia to re-acquire its aircraft carrier skills while not impacting too much on the LHDs primary mission.

 

[t68]

I think there is also a bigger picture here. Australia's two strongest allies are operating F-35Bs and it sounds like the Japanese are also about to join that club. At the very least we should be able to offer a cross-decking capability to them.

If Australia were to acquire F-35Bs there is also the possibility that they could operate from American and British ships as well as our own LHDs. This would effectively allow Australia to re-acquire its aircraft carrier skills while not impacting too much on the LHDs primary mission.

I thought I read not long ago that the RAAF already does exchange programs and we have pilots that have USN carrier qualifications, so it’s not altogether a bad idea.

A part of me wishes that RNZAF rebuilds the ACF with F35B so a Anzac CBG could be put together in a similar vain as the BPF ,

The British Pacific Fleet's main base was at Sydney Australia with a forward base at Manus island one of the largest fleets ever assembled by the Royal Navy, by VJ Day it had four battleships and six fleet aircraft carriers, fifteen smaller aircraft carriers, eleven cruisers, and numerous smaller warships, submarines, and support vessels.

 

[Wombat000]

A part of me wishes that RNZAF rebuilds the ACF with F35B so a Anzac CBG could be put together in a similar vain as the BPF ,

Careful what u wish for.
The notion of collaborative ANZAC capability development is utterly counter-logic to the defence planning establishments and Govts.
We must persist in piecemeal isolationalist dogma until the brown hits the fan, then we can reflect on why it wasnt so.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Let me BASH Canadians & Kiwis alike without causing OFFENCE. This comment is given because the way I see it both Canadians and Kiwidians have little interest in DEFENCE. Both countries have had declining defence assets for some time. Oft times I have mentioned in jest that the NEW Zealanders could contribute by having anew a 2 squadron force of F-35Bs for patrolling/policing their own and Pacific Islands whilst also [OMG!] doing praccy stuff aboard our LHDs or even crossing the ditch for OzOps (practice mind). We already know via GRUEN that the land of the long white cloud is easy to invade (by us). Canadians believe (I reckon) that the big southern neighbor will protect them despite their Canuckian lackadaisical attitude toward DA Fence. I'm inclined to believe a Chinese aircraft carrier visit to AUKwardLAND may become motivational but perhaps our possums will eat all the kiwis first. <sigh>

 

[ngatimozart]

This discussion is starting to take on the direction of a headless chook, running around in circles of ever decreasing dimensions. Nothing new is really being added to the discussion apart from one poster attempting to educate the rest. Old points, arguments and positions are being regurgitated ad nauseum.

The Moderators are growing weary of this and the complaints from other posters so either lift the quality of the posts and arguments or the Moderators will act. Rule #19 refers:

19. DefenceTalk exists to discuss current, historical and potential future defense matters, it is not the appropriate venue to discuss fantasy, sci-fi or conspiracy topics.​

 

[SpazSinbad]

't68' said: "I thought I read not long ago that the RAAF already does exchange programs and we have pilots that have USN carrier qualifications..." In recent cases this is NOTso for our GROWLER crews training in USofA. Long ago it may have been the case for some RAAF Hornet pilots on exchange with the USN (but I believe they only carqualled). BinnyBinBinskin would be a possibility however IIRC he was on exchange with USAF in F-16s at LUKE AFB yonks ago now. I've mentioned the LtGen Davis USMC desire to have an RAAF pilot exchange with the USMC F-35B crowd but I've heard nothing since. Certainly there have been USMC Hornet pilots on exchange with RAAF (one USMC pilot died a few years ago on weapon range sortie in Northern Australia however I cannot remember if he was 'on exchange'.).

 

[ngatimozart]

Let me BASH Canadians & Kiwis alike without causing OFFENCE. This comment is given because the way I see it both Canadians and Kiwidians have little interest in DEFENCE. Both countries have had declining defence assets for some time. Oft times I have mentioned in jest that the NEW Zealanders could contribute by having anew a 2 squadron force of F-35Bs for patrolling/policing their own and Pacific Islands whilst also [OMG!] doing praccy stuff aboard our LHDs or even crossing the ditch for OzOps (practice mind). We already know via GRUEN that the land of the long white cloud is easy to invade (by us). Canadians believe (I reckon) that the big southern neighbor will protect them despite their Canuckian lackadaisical attitude toward DA Fence. I'm inclined to believe a Chinese aircraft carrier visit to AUKwardLAND may become motivational but perhaps our possums will eat all the kiwis first. <sigh>

@SpazSinbad your visiting privileges to Kiwiland other than AUKwardLAND have been revoked. There is a cunning plan to airlift all NZ resident possums we can find, to your residence and test their aerobatic efficiency as we pass overhead.

If you are going to take a fence, I believe that the White House are looking for one so if you rabbit a neighbours one you could make some rum monies.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Ha! Colour me scared AS - we have FLYING POSSUMS here ya know. Why donchas import POWERFUL OWLs? They'll clean up big time (and create more problems?).

Powerful owl - Wikipedia

 

[ngatimozart]

Ha! Colour me scared AS - we have FLYING POSSUMS here ya know. Why donchas import POWERFUL OWLs? They'll clean up big time (and create more problems?).

Powerful owl - Wikipedia

Be right about creating more problems. Possums, stoats, rabbits, cats, wallabies, non native trout & birds were bought here by pommy settlers and released into the wild so that they could indulge in sport hunting etc., much like foxes and rabbits in your neck of the woods. Bastards. Himalayan Thar, deer and wild pig we can deal with relatively easily and they quite tasty they are, as are salmon, trout and non native duck, goose and swan. However the non natives do cause a significant amount of damage and have pushed many natives to extinction or near extinction. We had a magnificent and unique bird population up until the mid 19th Century but now a very large percentage of that is history and what remains is mostly endangered at best. The rest of our native flora and fauna is in similar straits.