Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[Ozzy Blizzard]

What I actually meant to say in reply to AGRA was that he and others made a strong point about it reducing the capacity of the LHDs to perform their primary mission (and the reason they have been purchased) if F-35Bs take up space at the expense of trooplift helos and other equipment. I have to concede that this is a valid argument

I know mate but i couldnt adress it to him could I? I know its not your personal opinion. Sorry if i sounded argumentative.

Personally, however, I am not totally convinced that a small detachment could not be deployed on one LHD, whilst still enabling a strong mechanised battlegroup and its helicopters to be spread between the two. I guess we will have to wait and see what sort of combinations of helos, landing craft, armoured vehicles, troops and other equipment the navy will be able to embark in the Canberras. No doubt there will be a lot of modelling of various options over the next few years. Perhaps that modelling will demonstrate that it will be possible to include VSTOL aircraft with the embarked force.

It all depends on the mission requirement and the basing footprint of the F35b's. You dont need to allways take the F35b's, it all depends on the mission. So considering this i dont understand the argument that buying the F35b will automatcaly compromise the trooplift helo capability and therefore its not worth the investment. You dont have to embark them if you dont need them. It does give you the option though. The flexability of these platforms would mean that as soon as suitable ground had been secured a rough field could be establised on the ground and the F35's could disembark. If there was no air threat then ARH's could be deployed instead. The logic i'm working on is that there has to be enough weight and space for several attack helo's to be operating in addition to the troop trucks at a high rate of operations and ordinance expenditure. There has to be significant room for the basing footprint of all those Helo's without compromising the ground complement. Now embarking F35b's would take up more room but i cant understand why 6 between the two would compromise the trooplift capability. I can see it affecting the ammount of helo's you can carry, but then again they can embark on other vessels. All i'm trying to say is i dont understand the argument that there is no point in buying F35b's because embarking them would compromise the trooplift. (i'm not saying you made this argument mate but 'others' have ).

Whatever the outcome, however, I strongly support the purchase of a third vessel which would ensure that a full squadron of F-35Bs could be deployed without reducing the ADF's amphibious capability. I envisage that a third ship would act in an aviation enhanced role in a similar way to the new USN LHA(R)s. It could operate 12 F-35Bs plus S-70B Seahawks and perhaps AEW versions of the MRH-90, whilst still embarking a reduced number of troops and equipment. This would free the other two LHDs to concentrate on the amphibious role.

mate thats a great idea! Then you could embark a really strong air wing without touching the task force's helo's. if a third one was to be purchased i would be as happy as a clam. But at the moment there is a plan for 2, and will strip club rudd set to enter government i doubt they'll be splurging on a third. however maybe the libs will be back in government by the time the second ones finished? We can allways hope. So i'm just trying to work with what we have.

Another possibility would be for a squadron of F-35Bs to deploy from a USN LHD, in the same way that we have discussed the FA-18Fs deploying from a USN carrier. In the absence of forward airbases RAAF F-35Bs could also use the LHDs as floating bases after they have landed their troops. The USN has used LHDs and LPHs as aviation support ships (Harrier carriers) and mine countermeasures vessels (with M/S helos embarked) as well as operating them in their primary amphibious role. The LHD that the RAN is getting is a very flexible design. Two ships will be good whilst a third, along with an RAAF squadron of F-35Bs, would better enable the ADF to take full advantage of the wide range of capabilities that they can offer.

Nice video BTW Ozzy!

Tas

Good points tassie....

The USN LHD idea is a great one in coalition operations, one of those things has plenty of room. However i was thinking more along the lines of an independent operation or one were the RAN was the major partner.

It seems that unless you are investing in a CVF LHD designes are probably the way to go for the pocket carrier. The flexability of the design allows for easy conversion from true LHD to pocket carrier very easilly. Hopefully the MoD will invest in the platforms and the extra hull needed for the ADF to take full advantage of the canberra's capabilities.

 

[AGRA]

I dont understand why it cant operate with ~3 F35B's and a few Helo's without compromising the ammount of army personell it can accomidate, if a rotary air wing of 10 odd wouldn't. Between the two LHD's you've got 6 F35b's. Thats the same ammount of fast jets the melbourne would usually deploy with so i would need some convincing to for me to accept that 6 F35's wount be usefull, let alone invaluable.

First off the Juan Carlos I class LHDs will have two hangars, fwd and aft. Only the fwd hangar is designed to accommodate STOVL fighters (F-35B and Harrier). However this hangar is also part of the vehicle storage bay. If you were to load it with F-35Bs it would cut into the Army’s vehicles. The Juan Carlos I class was never designed to be both a amphibious lift ship and a carrier. It was designed to be either – not both.

Also the F-35B utilizes far more fuel, ordnance and personnel than Army helicopters. The consumables required to support missions would eat up all the cargo space onboard for sustaining the landing force ashore.

Then of course there is force employment. A ship operating in support of an amphibious landing is required to do position itself and operate in a way a carrier does not, and vice versa.

Combining the roles is plain stupid. We have a requirement for three amphibious ships anyway to sustain the minimum of two needed for the ADAS. The third LHD – currently only funded in the DCP for a ‘sealift’ ship – can double as an expeditionary carrier when not in the dockyard.

Now given the flexability of VTOL/STOVL platforms there is no reason why rotary assets cant be transported on other vessels, even merchies, and transfered to the LHD's when needed. IIRC this is exactly what the pomies did during the falklands to great affect.

Which is actually not what the British did. They used merchant vessels to ferry some helicopters and Harriers south, not to operate from. There is a huge difference. Splitting the amphibious air wing like this would be an absolute nightmare for the operators. Frankly they wouldn’t do it because it just wouldn’t work.

The cost however of just building a third LHD is marginal compared to trying to modify and operate merchants as gap filling carriers just so you can fly a few F-35Bs off a LHD.

point is the flexability of these vessels and the F35b will allow us huge reach beyond the practicle unbrella of mainland based RAAF, and even if F35's will compromise the amount of helo's deployed on the canberra's themselves, they can be deployed on otherhulls.

Mainland RAAF? Jesus its not 1942 anymore bud…

I know mate but i couldnt adress it to him could I? I know its not your personal opinion. Sorry if i sounded argumentative.

You don’t have to ask people to respond, just put an idea up here for review. No need to say, “where the text-deleted hell are you?” Isn’t that the only reason I post online here? To ensure that this public is not mislead…

The flexability of these platforms would mean that as soon as suitable ground had been secured a rough field could be establised on the ground and the F35's could disembark.

And where are they then going to get their supporting infrastructure? Carried onboard the LHDs perhaps? Well there goes the remaining 50% of cargo and vehicle carriage capacity for the Army and 200 bunks.

These ships are designed to do several missions which include amphibious deployment and sustainment AND STOVL aircraft carrier. If we need both roles then we acquire enough ships to do both.

Mod edit:

The points raised by either party can be addressed without resulting to insults can't it?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

First off the Juan Carlos I class LHDs will have two hangars, fwd and aft. Only the fwd hangar is designed to accommodate STOVL fighters (F-35B and Harrier). However this hangar is also part of the vehicle storage bay. If you were to load it with F-35Bs it would cut into the Army’s vehicles. The Juan Carlos I class was never designed to be both a amphibious lift ship and a carrier. It was designed to be either – not both.

Thankyou i wasnt aware of that. Allthough i'm wondering why the aft hanger could not be used for STOVL fighters? The elevator perhaps?

Also the F-35B utilizes far more fuel, ordnance and personnel than Army helicopters. The consumables required to support missions would eat up all the cargo space onboard for sustaining the landing force ashore.

But heres the point. The F35 B will use more fuel and consumables than a Helo but there has to be significant fuel, buncks and ordinance stowage for 10+ helo's. now 3 or 4 F35b's may take up all of that, (appart from the forward hangar if you are right) but i dont see why their going to cut into any of the sealift's supportables.

Then of course there is force employment. A ship operating in support of an amphibious landing is required to do position itself and operate in a way a carrier does not, and vice versa.

Yeah but once the force is deployed which would take what a day? The ship can move to carrier operations. And i dont see why it needs to sit 300m of the shore with a helo link in place for wounded and the like. And why cant it do short 20kt runs to launch aircraft, especially if it only has 3~4, recovery would be no problem.

Combining the roles is plain stupid. We have a requirement for three amphibious ships anyway to sustain the minimum of two needed for the ADAS. The third LHD – currently only funded in the DCP for a ‘sealift’ ship – can double as an expeditionary carrier when not in the dockyard.

Mate i'm all for a 3rd LHD. But i'm just trying to work with what we have which is 2. And the way the political winds seem to be blowing I'm scheptical that a third will be purchased. Now I'm not convinced by your previous statements (last time you and me had a pleasant little chat ) that there's no point buying F35bs with the current plans for 2 LHD's. As i said in the post you are quoting its not perfect but having 1 LHD's air wing full of F35b's is better (when the threat requires it) than no F35b's IMO, even with all of the headaches.

Which is actually not what the British did. They used merchant vessels to ferry some helicopters and Harriers south, not to operate from. There is a huge difference. Splitting the amphibious air wing like this would be an absolute nightmare for the operators. Frankly they wouldn’t do it because it just wouldn’t work.

Now I think you might be wrong on that one mate. i'm more then willing to stand corrected here but this is the way i understood things as far as thats concerned. Due to the fact that every nook and cranny of the flat-tops were filled to the brim with sea harriers, they loaded up most of their heavy trooplift Helo's (chinhooks i think) on a merchie with loads of other kit, i cant remember the name of it. When it took a couple of 1000pd bombs during the battle of san carlos water the task force lost most of its heavy troop lift, i think 1 wasn't damaged, which took of and flew to the beachead. This meant that the planned leapfroging of companies across west falkland toward the battlefield arround stanly was unfeasable and 3CDO and the rest of the parras who didnt go to goose green had to walk all the way. Given the lack of port facilities or any form of civilisation at san carlos waters they were obviosly going to launch the helosf from the ship, they may have planned to establish a FOB on the beahead and operate them from there.

Now assuming that i'm right on that it illustrates that you can, without too much trouble, take the helo's you displaced with the F35b's, load them on merchies and take them with you, without converting the merchies to carriers.

The cost however of just building a third LHD is marginal compared to trying to modify and operate merchants as gap filling carriers just so you can fly a few F-35Bs off a LHD.

I dont know why you keep saying this. i said like 3 times now i'm all for a 3rf LHD. The point is what do we do if we dont get one?

Mainland RAAF? Jesus its not 1942 anymore bud…

LOL.... Thats right the RAAF doesent need 1000m paved runways and significant basing infestructure does it? And we have acsess to that sort of thing anyware in the world dont we????I thought that was the whole point of fixed air support for expiditionary warfare, so you can go were your land baced (mainland based) air power cant?

And where are they then going to get their supporting infrastructure? Carried onboard the LHDs perhaps? Well there goes the remaining 50% of cargo and vehicle carriage capacity for the Army and 200 bunks.

On other vessles! Just because we buy LHD's to fulfill our need for amphibious lift doesent mean we cant use anything elseas well. My point was that given the flexability of STOVL/VTOL platforms you dont have to keep tie them to specific vessels/parrant platforms. Annyway you'd be better off leaving the F35b's on board and establishing a FOB for the helos.

These ships are designed to do several missions which include amphibious deployment and sustainment AND STOVL aircraft carrier. If we need both roles then we acquire enough ships to do both.

Right, so they CANT operate as both???? Again i'm all for a 3rd LHD but i dont see why F35b's should be rulled out if we dont get one as you have previosly advocated.

You don’t have to ask people to respond, just put an idea up here for review. No need to say, “where the text-deleted hell are you?”

Mate i didnt ask you to respond. I know thats hard for you to understand that somone would not want to bask in the glorious light of AGRA's wisdom, but i dont. I adressed it to tassie for three reasons. 1, every time you and i have a conversation it ends up like this one is about too. 2, the mods told me to ignore you. 3, i dont (expletive) like you and i dont like listening to your rediculously arragant prose, no matter the substance. The fact you think i was pleading for your reply shows how self centred you are. i was attempting to adress an issue you were talking aboud without talking to you. But i wasnt too sucsessfull by the looks of it.

Just because you’re a colossal fool doesn’t mean I won’t respond to your foolish nonsense.

This is exactly what i mean by arrogant prose.

Isn’t that the only reason I post online here? To ensure that this public is not mislead…

Mod edit:

It's hardly appropriate. Disagree if you feel the need. Save your personal opinion for a PM if you feel that strongly about it.

Cheers

AD.

 

[AGRA]

Thankyou i wasnt aware of that. Allthough i'm wondering why the aft hanger could not be used for STOVL fighters? The elevator perhaps?

The floor; fighter aircraft are very heavy compared to helos and trucks.

But heres the point. The F35 B will use more fuel and consumables than a Helo but there has to be significant fuel, buncks and ordinance stowage for 10+ helo's. now 3 or 4 F35b's may take up all of that, (appart from the forward hangar if you are right) but i dont see why their going to cut into any of the sealift's supportables.

But this argument is based on the spurious idea that the helos can be operating from a converted merchant ship in support of the ADAS. Further in order to be combat effective the helicopters are just there to move troops to the shore. However the strike fighters have to be in the air all the time providing CAP, providing strike, etc. Apart from having a fuel requirement four times higher per mission than a MRH90 they have a much higher frequency of missions requirement. In terms of ordnance even an ARH is going to be a pinprick on an F-35.

Even then what do you have? 6 F-35Bs. This really isn’t a sustainable number of aircraft. One of the reason’s Melbourne was scrapped was that its small force of aircraft where highly dubious. The original Invincible fleet of 5 Harriers had a very limited role of shooting down Soviet naval reconnaissance aircraft in support of its primary ASW role. The small force of Harriers were an ASW asset! To destroy the aircraft providing targeting assistance to Soviet submarines…

After Falklands and the paying off of Hermes (that carried most of the Falklands burden) the air group was increased firstly to 8-9 Harriers, then 16.

Yeah but once the force is deployed which would take what a day? The ship can move to carrier operations. And i dont see why it needs to sit 300m of the shore with a helo link in place for wounded and the like. And why cant it do short 20kt runs to launch aircraft, especially if it only has 3~4, recovery would be no problem.

So the F-35s have to wait to the force is ashore to operate? What’s the point of that?

they loaded up most of their heavy trooplift Helo's (chinhooks i think) on a merchie with loads of other kit

Not quite… After the task group departed south the MV Atlantic Conveyor was converted to a MAC – a merchant auxiliary carrier. By conversion some containers were mounted along the sides behind a rough landing/takeoff deck. Onboard this ship was a squadron of Harriers, a squadron of helicopters and enough tenting for 20,000 people. The aircraft were never ‘operated’ from the container ship, the objective being to use it as an aircraft ferry. The Harriers having longer legs took off and landed onto the two carriers. The Chinooks were being prepped to take off and fly to the beachhead when the Argentine Armada sunk the ship with an Exocet. It went down with all but one Chinook and all the tents.

This use of merchants is feasible as ferries and cargo carrying ships. Not operating platforms, without extensive modifications. The issue for the LHDs having a combined amphib/carrier role being not so much one of brute storage space but space to support operations, makes this idea – not one.

LOL.... Thats right the RAAF doesent need 1000m paved runways and significant basing infestructure does it? And we have acsess to that sort of thing anyware in the world dont we????I thought that was the whole point of fixed air support for expiditionary warfare, so you can go were your land baced (mainland based) air power cant?

You said ‘Reach From Mainland’ in a typical Defence of Australia war against Japan Take 2 view of the world. There are pleny of other paved runways outside of Australia of which the RAAF has made much use of.

Let me tell you something mate. I think you are a self righous intelectual bully who hides behind this mantra of 'keeping the "public" informed' while you go around ridiculeing others in iorder to preserve you're personall feeling of superiority.

There’s a big tear rolling down my cheek just for you… Boo text-deleted Hoo. If life was better on this forum before me that was because you enjoyed self-delusion and deluding others. I have nothing against counter-factuals, alternate history, fantasy football, etc. I actually really enjoy it myself.

But Armchair Air Marshals like ‘Ozzy Blizard’ pontificating to the world incredibly wrong facts, interpretations and assumptions about military capability as if it was real and claiming it is, - is a very different thing. It is misleading the public. If ‘Ozzy Blizard’ can't handle me correcting him and telling him off then he can get me kicked off, get lost himself or - even better - harden up.

I’ve been quite thorough in my assessment of ‘Ozzy Blizard’, I’ve gone through and read almost all your posts. While he is getting precious here about the standard of debate he has had no problems hooking in before:

How do i back up my statements? common sence mabye! A threat to regional security! F*#k what do you want written security assurances?

I don't think the guy who was the object of that venting was very happy and now look who’s having a cry…

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

But this argument is based on the spurious idea that the helos can be operating from a converted merchant ship in support of the ADAS. Further in order to be combat effective the helicopters are just there to move troops to the shore. However the strike fighters have to be in the air all the time providing CAP, providing strike, etc. Apart from having a fuel requirement four times higher per mission than a MRH90 they have a much higher frequency of missions requirement. In terms of ordnance even an ARH is going to be a pinprick on an F-35.

No the point was that you can ferry the choppers out there and use them when you actually get to the threater through an FOB. So just because you cant use the choppers of the LHD doesent mean you have to leave them behind. And an F35 may have 4 times the fuel requirements of an MRH90, but there is fuel stowage for 10+ helo's, so 3~4 F35b's would be within those limits. And the ordinance requirements in high intencity operations would be much higher for an F35, but it can be transfered from other vessels. Again its not perfect, but it is doable.

Even then what do you have? 6 F-35Bs. This really isn’t a sustainable number of aircraft. One of the reason’s Melbourne was scrapped was that its small force of aircraft where highly dubious. The original Invincible fleet of 5 Harriers had a very limited role of shooting down Soviet naval reconnaissance aircraft in support of its primary ASW role. The small force of Harriers were an ASW asset! To destroy the aircraft providing targeting assistance to Soviet submarines…

After Falklands and the paying off of Hermes (that carried most of the Falklands burden) the air group was increased firstly to 8-9 Harriers, then 16.

Yeah you have 6 F35b's. Now is that as good as 12? no. But is it better than none? you betcha! You may struggle to keep a CAP 24/7 but at least you would have one. If you leave air defence to the AWD's alone then threat platforms can just sit out of range and launch AShM's, they may stuggle to get through the SM6/SM2 & ESSM umbrella but there would be nothing we could do about the launch platforms at all. And thats just in the fleet air defence role, the CAS/BID and general strike capabiliy of SDB equiped F35b's would be something no ARH could dream of. If its 6 vs 12 i agree with you, but if its 6 vs 0 then for sure i'll take 6.

So the F-35s have to wait to the force is ashore to operate? What’s the point of that?

Only while the troops are loading in the LST's, so they could juggle it. Kepp the F35'bs waiting untill a load of troops are away which wouldnt take more than half an hour (i'm guessing here) as far as getting on the landing craft and the craft separating from the LHD. Then conduct flight ops for a few half an hour to launch your F35b's. Landing opps are irrelevent as they can be done if the ship is sitting still.

Not quite… After the task group departed south the MV Atlantic Conveyor was converted to a MAC – a merchant auxiliary carrier. By conversion some containers were mounted along the sides behind a rough landing/takeoff deck. Onboard this ship was a squadron of Harriers, a squadron of helicopters and enough tenting for 20,000 people. The aircraft were never ‘operated’ from the container ship, the objective being to use it as an aircraft ferry. The Harriers having longer legs took off and landed onto the two carriers. The Chinooks were being prepped to take off and fly to the beachhead when the Argentine Armada sunk the ship with an Exocet. It went down with all but one Chinook and all the tents.

Which is my point. You can move your trooplift stuff on a merchie and operate it from FOB once your in theater. And the fact that it was converted to an "auxillary carrier" in a matter of days-weeks shows its not impossible by any means. And are you shure it was an exocet that sank her? i thought the only exocet casualty was sheffield, especially in the battle of san carlos water given the land constrictions, i was under the impression that all of the casualties were due to iron bombs.

This use of merchants is feasible as ferries and cargo carrying ships. Not operating platforms, without extensive modifications. The issue for the LHDs having a combined amphib/carrier role being not so much one of brute storage space but space to support operations, makes this idea – not one.

This is my point. i may have said operate them from merchies which might not be feasable but you can, without too much trouble, move your trooplift or ARH helo's by merche, with the kit needed to establish a FOB when some ground is secured and bobs your uncle.

You said ‘Reach From Mainland’ in a typical Defence of Australia war against Japan Take 2 view of the world. There are pleny of other paved runways outside of Australia of which the RAAF has made much use of.

Semantics again mate. Typical, you aviod the point and attack the form.

There’s a big tear rolling down my cheek just for you… Boo text-deleted Hoo. If life was better on this forum before me that was because you enjoyed self-delusion and deluding others. I have nothing against counter-factuals, alternate history, fantasy football, etc. I actually really enjoy it myself.

Mate It wasnt just better for me, i've allready pointed out your intelectual bullying of others. I know you enjoy yorself, i can tell you love the feeling of being superior, and ridcule others in order to get it. I've allways hated bullies AGRA, and that hasn't changed.

And I'm not crying bud....

But Armchair Air Marshals like ‘Ozzy Blizard’ pontificating to the world incredibly wrong facts, interpretations and assumptions about military capability as if it was real and claiming it is, - is a very different thing. It is misleading the public.

You you still like using "" arround "Ozzy Blizzard" huh? Still think i'm your arch enemy CK??? Mate well you keep wasting your time trying to pursue that if you want. I'm kacking myself at the idea of you sitting at your computer for hours going through all of my posts with a fine tooth comb loking for a single word or sentance that will reveal my hidden idenhtity, or you actually hireing someone to anaylise my writing in order to prove i was Carlo, only to be told your wasting your time and money. nfloorl: but you keep chasing that rainbow mate.

And i have only ever put forward my opinion, anytime i have been wrong in a point of fact i've been happy to be corrected. In fact you corrected me in a point of fact and in the post you are quoting i thanked you for it. And "missleading the public" imples a motive, CK again eh???? Do do do do do do do do, its that worldwide APA conspiracy :shudder..... Your a laugh a minet.

If ‘Ozzy Blizard’ can't handle me correcting him and telling him off then he can get me kicked off, get lost himself or - even better - harden up.

Theres that self righous tone again AGRA, you just cant get enough of it can you. My girlfriends doing her masters in psycology and your showing real signs of narsisitic personality disorder. So your the school teacher eh correcting the kiddies and telling them off? Self designated superior position again... is there a pattern here .

I dont mind people disagreeing with me, in fact i enjoy it, a good discussion needs disagreement. What i do expletive mind is pandering to someones ego puffing at the expence of others.

And as far as getting you kicked off given your attitude i would in a minet if i could, but we both know thats not gonna happen. to be honnest i'd much rather be able to have a decent, respectfull conversation with someone of your experiance, but given your need to constatntly attack me personally or implicate me in some APA conspiracy, and the way you treat other posters I wouldn't mind at all if you dissapered.

I’ve been quite thorough in my assessment of ‘Ozzy Blizard’, I’ve gone through and read almost all your posts. While he is getting precious here about the standard of debate he has had no problems hooking in before:

I don't think the guy who was the object of that venting was very happy and now look who’s having a cry…

LOL... So you've allmost finished your "assesment" of me hey? Did i get an A? or a C+, maybe i failed huh? nfloorl:

Newsflash bud, this isn't a school and your not the teacher! I know you need to feed that ego buy reffering to yourself as something superior to the rest of us, but you aint the one in charge.

So you went through all of my posts huh? And that was the best thing you could come up with? I got heated in an argument and put my point across in a forcefull way. You on the other hand openly ridicule your opponants calling the fools and the like. big difference.

 

[AGRA]

No the point was that you can ferry the choppers out there and use them when you actually get to the threater through an FOB. So just because you cant use the choppers of the LHD doesent mean you have to leave them behind. And an F35 may have 4 times the fuel requirements of an MRH90, but there is fuel stowage for 10+ helo's, so 3~4 F35b's would be within those limits. And the ordinance requirements in high intencity operations would be much higher for an F35, but it can be transfered from other vessels. Again its not perfect, but it is doable.

If it’s now an issue of ferrying there is plenty of space in the LHD. The flight deck park can store plenty of planes. The whole point is there is not enough space for the simultaneous operation of strike fighters and amphibious deployment. For the US Navy to do a very similar thing to what you are suggesting they need a 40,000 tonne LHD, not a ~25,000 tonne one. Even then they have felt the need to remove the well dock from their latest LHD to provide more space for the aviation capability.

This idea that you can juggle helicopters, ordnance and so on between a bunch of merchant ships take up from trade to fit your desired outcome is ridiculous. No one has done this because it can’t be done. The two LHDs will be hard pressed to land and sustain a single battle group force.

Finally the need for F-35s to support the landing force is actually rather minor because this force and our current force structure would not be survivable in the face of a major threat. We would need substantially more assets in order to make it possible. Circling a couple of F-35s over the top of a fleet is not going to give you the kind of AEW needed to use them or the kind of strike needed to shape a major opponent.

This is what an aircraft carrier is needed for. With an aircraft carrier’s list of capabilities, including sustainable significant air wing with fighters and AEW&C.

Semantics again mate. Typical, you aviod the point and attack the form.

Not at all. You are trying to redefine what you said. You said: mainland based RAAF. The RAAF is not limited to the mainland but to any secure runway in the world. And beyond that what is your point? There are not many amphibious landing scenarios involving the ADF by itself that would be out of reach of an available runway.

My whole point by promoting the coalition carrier concept and how it could also apply to the RAAF deploying a squadron to an LHD is to contribute to those operations outside of secure airbase reach. This has very little to do with the South East Asian or South Pacific region. It is more to do with Australia playing our expected role in international peace and stabilisation which is primarily focused on the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa.

Mate It wasnt just better for me, i've allready pointed out your intelectual bullying of others. I know you enjoy yorself, i can tell you love the feeling of being superior, and ridcule others in order to get it. I've allways hated bullies AGRA, and that hasn't changed.

I’m not intellectually bullying others simply pointing out the falseness and craziness of their statements. You mentioned Markus40 before, the guy is persisting in claiming because of two unrelated paragraphs in a press release that the Collins class is fitted for not with Tomahawk. Pointing out that this is totally wrong in the face of his obstinate refusal to be corrected is not bullying.

Nor is exposing the sheer ludicrousness of your position on the ADAS and STOVL aircraft. Because I ‘debate’ with authority and zeal that may leave others stinging does not make me a bully. It just makes you wrong and it sure sounds like you are crying. No one else is having a sook 'Ozzy', just you.

Theres that self righous tone again AGRA, you just cant get enough of it can you. My girlfriends doing her masters in psycology and your showing real signs of narsisitic personality disorder.

If so she just failed. Basing a clinical impression on some text posted on the internet is hardly the basis of any kind of reasonable psychological work.

BTW the quote of yours is on the first (last) page of your post history. It didn’t take me long to find an example of you dropping text-deleted on some other poster. As for APA and CK, well he’s OCD so I expect him to be capable of taking any lengths possible to further a plot. You are yet to PM me about your ‘real’ identity as you once promised. Previous posts from OB have been either written by CK or cut and pasted from his writings… I’m yet to be dissuaded. But as the mods have asked this conversation should really be PM.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

If it’s now an issue of ferrying there is plenty of space in the LHD. The flight deck park can store plenty of planes. The whole point is there is not enough space for the simultaneous operation of strike fighters and amphibious deployment. For the US Navy to do a very similar thing to what you are suggesting they need a 40,000 tonne LHD, not a ~25,000 tonne one. Even then they have felt the need to remove the well dock from their latest LHD to provide more space for the aviation capability.

I dont see why not and your yet to adequatly explain it too me. Why ecactly can one of these LHDs operate with a large (12+) rotary air wing without affecting the trooplift capability yet operating 3 F35's in its place would to a large extent. That just doesent make sence to me. Now I agree wou cant operate the full rotary air wing and strike fighters, but i dont see why you cant exchange the two.

This idea that you can juggle helicopters, ordnance and so on between a bunch of merchant ships take up from trade to fit your desired outcome is ridiculous. No one has done this because it can’t be done. The two LHDs will be hard pressed to land and sustain a single battle group force.

I didnt just say merchies. You can ferry choppers on merchant ships and use them when your in theater, as stated before the pommies did it in the falklands without too much trouble 9apart from the loss of the vessel). So thats one side of it. As far as supplying the extra ordinance are you saying an LHD can not be resupplied by Helo from other vessels????? Again its not ideal but i dont see why its doable. I'm not bending facts in order to achieve an outcome, your saying it cant be done and i dont see why.

Finally the need for F-35s to support the landing force is actually rather minor because this force and our current force structure would not be survivable in the face of a major threat. We would need substantially more assets in order to make it possible. Circling a couple of F-35s over the top of a fleet is not going to give you the kind of AEW needed to use them or the kind of strike needed to shape a major opponent.

This is what an aircraft carrier is needed for. With an aircraft carrier’s list of capabilities, including sustainable significant air wing with fighters and AEW&C.

So if we cant have a carrier don't bother???? i dont get your logic. You dont think a task force centered arround 2 Hobarts with some sort of fixed wing air cover would be worth sending against anyone who has an air force???? Again i dont get your logic. Were not talking about invading an enemy nation here. in that sort of scenario i agree 6 F35b's arnet going to be enough, but neither is a mechanised brigade. But a more likely scenario, which is what i was thinking, is a falklands esk situation with a foregen ocupation of a third party (probably island) with some sort of an air threat. Now even without AEW 6 F35b's will be invaluable, even if you cant operate as many HELO's in the initial phase. Again 6 is better than none.

Not at all. You are trying to redefine what you said. You said: mainland based RAAF. The RAAF is not limited to the mainland but to any secure runway in the world. And beyond that what is your point? There are not many amphibious landing scenarios involving the ADF by itself that would be out of reach of an available runway.

Pardon me... You know what i meant. i should have said mainland Aus or freindly runway.

And out of reach????? are you kidding me??? Operating at maximum range with very limited station time if its feasible at all. And you cant rely on having a conveniant runway within 400NM of were your sailing to. I can think of plenty of places that are more than 400NM away from a freindly runway.

My whole point by promoting the coalition carrier concept and how it could also apply to the RAAF deploying a squadron to an LHD is to contribute to those operations outside of secure airbase reach. This has very little to do with the South East Asian or South Pacific region. It is more to do with Australia playing our expected role in international peace and stabilisation which is primarily focused on the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa.

If we are looking at a coalition operation with the US then there's no real need for RAAF F35b's operating off the canberra's, we'll have all the air support we'll ever need. The point is indipendant operation, when our good freinds in the states are not directly involved.

I’m not intellectually bullying others simply pointing out the falseness and craziness of their statements. You mentioned Markus40 before, the guy is persisting in claiming because of two unrelated paragraphs in a press release that the Collins class is fitted for not with Tomahawk. Pointing out that this is totally wrong in the face of his obstinate refusal to be corrected is not bullying.

Thats total crap. You didnt just correct him. You ridiculed him, commented on his personal capacity and passed judgement on all of his input. Other DP's such as your mates would have simply corrected the missunderstanding in point of fact matter and left it at that. That would not be bullying. Using a small missunderstanding in a definition of 'fitted for but not with' as an excuse to attack someone's credability and ridicule them is bullying.

Nor is exposing the sheer ludicrousness of your position on the ADAS and STOVL aircraft. Because I ‘debate’ with authority and zeal that may leave others stinging does not make me a bully. It just makes you wrong and it sure sounds like you are crying. No one else is having a sook 'Ozzy', just you.

I would love it if you would "debate", when you actually do you'll find i reply in a positive way. And i dont mind at all if i you think i'm wrong, if you enguage my arguments i will like you more for it. But calling people fools attacking them personally, questioning their identity, or passing jusgement on their input like your some sort of DT god isn't having a nice chat or changing an opinion, it is expletive bullying with the sole purpose of suring up your feeling of superiority at the expence of others. Thats all it is, no matter what label you hide behind.

I dont care what everyone else is not saying, perhaps people are intimidated by you, but guess what bud, I'm not.

If so she just failed. Basing a clinical impression on some text posted on the internet is hardly the basis of any kind of reasonable psychological work.

mate thats my personal opinion . If you want me to get her to have a look at your posts and get back to you with a written opinion i'll be happy to oblige. :crazy

BTW the quote of yours is on the first (last) page of your post history. It didn’t take me long to find an example of you dropping text-deleted on some other poster. As for APA and CK, well he’s OCD so I expect him to be capable of taking any lengths possible to further a plot. You are yet to PM me about your ‘real’ identity as you once promised. Previous posts from OB have been either written by CK or cut and pasted from his writings… I’m yet to be dissuaded. But as the mods have asked this conversation should really be PM.

Its only the first page? I though you had done a thorough 'assesment' of me????:lol3 keep looking mate, spend all night on it, i'll enjoy that thought while i watch the game and enjoy a nice cold beer.

So i'm either CK or i've just cut and pasted his stuff huh? Well which one is it? You were positive i was he, you even threatend to get someone to anylise my posts to 'prove' it. But now i'm just a cut and paster huh? If so it shouldnt be to hard in the cource of your thorough "assesment" of me to find out were exactly i cut and pasted. just spend a few hours on it and i'm sure youl find it.

And as far as me PMing you my identity, i assumed you would have either seen or heard of the PM i sent to GF about it. I sent adetailed message to him with my identity, ocupation, age and history, i decided against telling someone on the internet who is adamant i'm part of some conspiracy my name and age. That wouldnt be very smart would it?


Mod edit:

All right boys, "back to your corners"...

This thread is going to be closed for a day or 2 to let everyone cool down a bit. The "carrier for Australia" thread likewise. Please don't continue on the other threads. I'm not very interested in closing and editing threads all night!!!

When they are re-opened, perhaps we can start all over again and debate enthusiastically, without insult?

Everyone's here to talk about defence issues. I'm sure there are places we can all go to "have it out" on-line or we can use the PM system if absolutely necessary...

I'm getting a bit sick of asking all the time too, FYI...

Regards

AD

 

[Preceptor]

RAAF thread reopened

Okay, this thread has been closed for the past three days to allow members to cool off. Hopefully it will not be necessary to close this thread again in the future as that negatively impacts discussions.

-Preceptor

 

[StingrayOZ]

http://worldnavy.info/specification/amph_forces/bpe.html

Just some images of hanger configs on the BPE design.

I can see it possibly mixing a few F-35B's and some other stuff.

 

[Bunyip]

I've heard through the grapevine that the air force is considering buying another 2 c-17s, bringing the total number to 6. lets hope it comes through

 

[Tasman]

I've heard through the grapevine that the air force is considering buying another 2 c-17s, bringing the total number to 6. lets hope it comes through

I fell in love with the C-17 at the Avalon Air Show - I just loved the impression of size and power. I hope the grapevine is correct.

Tas

 

[Bunyip]

well i'l try to keep you up to date, but from what i hear they are still going over wether or not we can afford it.

 

[swerve]

http://worldnavy.info/specification/amph_forces/bpe.html

Just some images of hanger configs on the BPE design.

I can see it possibly mixing a few F-35B's and some other stuff.

Lifted from the Armada website. Best to go to the source -
http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPort...book_conocenos_programas/BB_BuqueProyEstrateg

Note that the pictures are of AV-8B+, not F-35.

 

[Todjaeger]

Okay, here's a question I've been meaning to ask but haven't been able to while the thread was locked. Which WVR missile is the RAAF likely to use aboard the F-35?

At present I believe the RAAF is equipped with ASRAAM for use on the F/A-18 A/B Hornets and had (has?) AIM-9M for self-defence on the F-111C. With the pending sale and delivery of the F/A-18F Super Hornets stocks of munitions are (I believe) to be included with that, and the WVR for the Super Hornets is the AIM-9X. That will mean two WVR missiles in service with the RAAF.

The US I believe is only planning on integrating the AIM-9X onto it's F-35 A/B/C models, and the UK is planning on integrating the ASRAAM onto it's F-35B's. So I wonder, which WVR missile will be selected and integrated for use aboard RAAF F-35's? Is the RAAF going to want to retain both types, pay to integrate the ASRAAM aboard the -A model, or just go with the AIM-9X? This would of course also change if the RAAF/ADF did end up replacing the F/A-18F around 2020 with -B models. That would change the situation as well.

-Cheers

 

[harryriedl]

Okay, here's a question I've been meaning to ask but haven't been able to while the thread was locked. Which WVR missile is the RAAF likely to use aboard the F-35?

At present I believe the RAAF is equipped with ASRAAM for use on the F/A-18 A/B Hornets and had (has?) AIM-9M for self-defence on the F-111C. With the pending sale and delivery of the F/A-18F Super Hornets stocks of munitions are (I believe) to be included with that, and the WVR for the Super Hornets is the AIM-9X. That will mean two WVR missiles in service with the RAAF.

The US I believe is only planning on integrating the AIM-9X onto it's F-35 A/B/C models, and the UK is planning on integrating the ASRAAM onto it's F-35B's. So I wonder, which WVR missile will be selected and integrated for use aboard RAAF F-35's? Is the RAAF going to want to retain both types, pay to integrate the ASRAAM aboard the -A model, or just go with the AIM-9X? This would of course also change if the RAAF/ADF did end up replacing the F/A-18F around 2020 with -B models. That would change the situation as well.

-Cheers

according to http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml both AIM9X, ASRAAM and METEOR , AIM120 will all be integrated in the baseline models of the F35

'The list of weapons that the JSF will carry when it enters service has not yet been finalized. However, it has been decided that all variants will be cleared to carry the same selection of weapons regardless of whether or not each user actually intends to arm its planes with that weapon. For example, the Navy CV variant will be cleared to carry the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) even though only the Air Force has that weapon in its inventory. Similarly, all US aircraft will be compatible with the ASRAAM air-to-air missile that only the United Kingdom plans to carry on its planes. The decision to clear all variants with the same weapon loads was made in order to simplify integration requirements, maintain commonality, and lower overall development costs. Note that the above statements are no longer entirely true since the bays of the F-35B STOVL version have been reduced in size as mentioned earlier. As a result, the F-35B is no longer compatible with JSOW and 2,000 lb JDAM weapons. The largest weapon this F-35 variant can carry internally is the GBU-32 1,000 lb version of JDAM. A list of the weapons that are currently planned for internal carriage on the F-35 is shown below.'The list of weapons that the JSF will carry when it enters service has not yet been finalized. However, it has been decided that all variants will be cleared to carry the same selection of weapons regardless of whether or not each user actually intends to arm its planes with that weapon. For example, the Navy CV variant will be cleared to carry the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) even though only the Air Force has that weapon in its inventory. Similarly, all US aircraft will be compatible with the ASRAAM air-to-air missile that only the United Kingdom plans to carry on its planes. The decision to clear all variants with the same weapon loads was made in order to simplify integration requirements, maintain commonality, and lower overall development costs. Note that the above statements are no longer entirely true since the bays of the F-35B STOVL version have been reduced in size as mentioned earlier. As a result, the F-35B is no longer compatible with JSOW and 2,000 lb JDAM weapons. The largest weapon this F-35 variant can carry internally is the GBU-32 1,000 lb version of JDAM. A list of the weapons that are currently planned for internal carriage on the F-35 is shown below.'

what this quote doesn't mention was EBDA funding METEOR for all variants of JSF http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/meteor-missile-will-make-changes-to-accommodate-f35-0599/

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Personally i hope the RAAF does go with ASRAAM for the F35 over the 9x. The capabilities of these missiles are very similar. However i was under the impression that the main diefference between the 2 systems was that the 9x has less range and is designed to be better end game performer. It does have high off broadsight capability, IIRC you can basicaly target anything the pilot can see over his sholder. The ASRAAM however has fewer controll surfaces and a longer range. Apart from the fact that it gives up some of its airodynamic end game performance (in comparison to the 9x) it has a true "360 degre" off broadsight capability. The ASRAAM gives the pilot a "sphere" engagement envilope. Now currently its not easy to target something directly behind you unless you have a sensor pointing that way, and AFAIK currently the Flanker is the only platform with such a system. However the DAS on the F35 (Distributed Apature System) will give the pilot 360 degrees of WVR IRST coverage, this coupled with the 360 degree engagement envilope on the ASRAAM will alow the pilot to target any threat at any angle, even directly behind him. It will be a very effective WVR combination.

 

[swerve]

according to http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml both AIM9X, ASRAAM and METEOR , AIM120 will all be integrated in the baseline models of the F35 ...

I wonder if Italian requirements will lead to Iris-T being integrated?

 

[rjmaz1]

Also some food for though regarding the F-35B's.

Some of you think that there will be fewer F-35A's to fill the airforce squadrons..


Lets look at the F-111 fleet..

We currently operate 26 F-111's. Half of which are usually not operational. Best case we have 16 or so F-111's operational. Thats about right for a single squadron... But wait... We have TWO F-111 squadrons thats only 8 operational aircraft per squadron!!

So much for our 24 aircraft per squadron idea.

Lets look at our F/A-18 Fleet.

We have 71 aircraft. 17 of two seat trainers and 51 single seat combat aircraft.
Now we have three squadrons which would seem right but then we also have a training/conversion unit which uses the two seaters shared with Number 3 and 77 squadrons are Williamstown. As most squadrons include a couple two seaters that gives us only 17-18 combat aircraft per squadron.

So much for out 24 aircraft squadron idea.

If we reduce the squadron size to 20 aircraft that is much more realistic. 5 squadrons of 20 brings up 100 aircraft in total. Looking at squadron sizes of the F-111 i believe that the reliability of the F-35's will be so good that we could use 16 aircraft squadrons. That gives us 5 squadrons of 16 aircraft to replace the two F-111 and two F/A-18 hornet squadrons. That brings a total of only 80 F-35 aircraft.

A 6th additional suqadron of 16 aircraft could consist of F-35B's. 16 would be a perfect size of F-35B's. 8 F-35's could be rotated onto one of the three LHD's.

 

[Navor86]

You are right about the Orbat of F111 Sqn,but IIRC "wrong" about F18 Squadrons.
Oz has 3 F/18 Combat Squadrons (77,75;3) each with 14 Aircraft.
The Rest is operated by 2 Operational Conservation Unit.
So if we stick with the 14 Configuration you could build up 6 Sqn of total 86 Aircraft for Combat Ops and a Sqn of 14 JSF for OCU/Evaluation.
If we then take into account that the Super Hornet will stay after JSF arives we may got a 8 Combat Sqn. Ive heard something on the lines that Rhino maybe will be upgraded to Growler Standard,which imho is a very good idea.
source:http://www.geocities.com/pacific_oob/RAAF_2004.htm

 

[rjmaz1]

Thats even fewer than i thought. I remembered reading that a couple 2 seaters were attached to each squadron.

A squadron size of 14 is pretty low. If the F-111's only operate 8 aircraft per squadron then in my opinion it would be very smart to operate 12 aircraft per squadron.

A dozen aircraft is extremely good number as it can be evenly divided into two or three groups.

Also as we are buying two dozen Super Hornets we could make up two squadrons. Aparently the 24 superhornets will go into two squadrons at number 1 and 6 squadrons. This confirms that 12 aircraft will be the new squadron total.

We can assume two things from this. Either the RAAF will be reducing its squadron size and number of pilots per squadron or the RAAF plans to fly the Super Hornets at a very high rate. The Super Hornets may have a fairly quick life and used heavily. So they will most likely be replaced by the last two squadrons of F-35's. The two squadrons Super hornets may then be converted into a single squadron and turned into Growlers.

Lets calculate the JSF order based on a 12 aircraft squadron. We now need very few F-35's to replace the current squadrons. In fact we could create a 6th or even 7th fighter squadron.

36 F-35A's to replace the 3 squadrons of Classic Hornets first up.
24 F-35A's to replace the 2 squadrons Super Hornets.
12 F-35B's to add to the LHD's.

Thats 72 F-35's.

12 F-35b's is the ideal number. All 12 could be added to an LHD for a carrier only operation. 6 of them could be rotated on and off an LHD. 4 of them could be rotated off a pair of LHD's as four aircraft per LHD will have minor impact on the amfib role.

In my opinion Australia will never own 100 F-35's as they cost too much.