Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Navor86]

Some pages before someone mentioned that it would be possible to keep the 2 Australian build Adelaide Class FFG. If lets say RAN gets a 4th AWD in 2018;the 2 FFG would be each around 25 years. How may Years would they have effectivly left. Would it make sense to run for another lets say 8 Years?
And when does RAN plan to decomission the ANZACS? Iknow that last has just recently been built,just curious

 

[Systems Adict]

Tas, would Hawks need anti-corrosive treatment? I tried to find out what kind of possible minimal runway length Hawks need, but couldn't. Most operated from large runways used by larger aircraft because they are usually used in training roles. I did find mention of operation from "reduced length runways" whatever that means.

To refer to / continue the train of thought in a previous post (by enghave / No. #736 )

To "Navalise" the Hawk would be an EXTREME waste of taxpayers funds....

The Hawk always has & always will be a "Light" trainer / jet fighter. It was designed primarily to be a jet trainer, & has been "adapted" to be used as a fighter. I'm sure that BAE Systems would gladly take on a redesign project, but it would be an effective new design / build, with cost's probably running into £Billions, then again, it's probably been looked at as a "Design Concept" by them, so may well have some data knocking about.

Time for a Google / Wiki search methinks.....

Systems Adict


Doh !!

It IS amazing wot you find on google / Wiki...

:lam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-45_Goshawk

 

[t68]

Hi guys


Thanks for the info.
i forgot about the cat and aresstor wires i was thinking of a harrier go of a ski jump forgot about how to land .

Better go back to watching the castle (tell him hes dreaming)


regards
tom

 

[Aussie Digger]

The Hawks are getting long in the tooth, but the greatest problem is that they are not configured to operate from ships. Its not as simple as just hoisting the aircraft onto the deck and 'giving-it-a-go'
However, the Hawks can be used in COIN and close air support roles, and pilots that train on them also get to fire stuff from them before they get a go at the Hornets.

The RAAF's Hawks aren't all that old... Not much more than about 5 years as I recall...

As for their use in COIN operations, they are pretty much limited to unguided Mk 82's and a podded 30mm cannon. That's it.

It would be a pretty dire situation if RAAF were forced to employ them operationally...

 

[Tasman]

To refer to / continue the train of thought in a previous post (by enghave / No. #736 )

To "Navalise" the Hawk would be an EXTREME waste of taxpayers funds....

The Hawk always has & always will be a "Light" trainer / jet fighter. It was designed primarily to be a jet trainer, & has been "adapted" to be used as a fighter. I'm sure that BAE Systems would gladly take on a redesign project, but it would be an effective new design / build, with cost's probably running into £Billions, then again, it's probably been looked at as a "Design Concept" by them, so may well have some data knocking about.

Time for a Google / Wiki search methinks.....

Systems Adict

I agree that it would be a waste of taxpayer's funds to develop a navalised Hawk. However, work on navalising the Hawk has already been done. The T-45 Goshawk is a navalised Hawk for the USN that was jointly manufactured by Boeing and BAE Systems. However, the Goshawk is not armed, other than for training purposes.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/t45/

Tas

 

[FutureTank]

Yes, the case of Hawks not simple at all. It seems that as a category I rated aircraft, at 'empty' weight (0 stores and 0 fuel) it can land in about 500ft of runway...but probably when flown by the instructor rather then the trainee pilot.
Navalising it would require a new aircraft because many systems and materials used are not suitable for extended exposure to 'maritime environmental effects'...a really long way to say salt
If I found a fourth word in describing salt I could have called myself a 'think tank'

 

[FutureTank]

The RAAF's Hawks aren't all that old... Not much more than about 5 years as I recall...

As for their use in COIN operations, they are pretty much limited to unguided Mk 82's and a podded 30mm cannon. That's it.

It would be a pretty dire situation if RAAF were forced to employ them operationally...

I thought first deliveries were in the late 90s?
Unguided rockets and a 30mm cannon are not something to sneeze at...
However there is a much larger number of stores that can be used on the Hawk, although probably not in RAAF inventory.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I thought first deliveries were in the late 90s?
Unguided rockets and a 30mm cannon are not something to sneeze at...
However there is a much larger number of stores that can be used on the Hawk, although probably not in RAAF inventory.

Never said they were, however unguided rockets are not part of the RAAF inventory I understand...

 

[Tasman]

Some pages before someone mentioned that it would be possible to keep the 2 Australian build Adelaide Class FFG. If lets say RAN gets a 4th AWD in 2018;the 2 FFG would be each around 25 years. How may Years would they have effectivly left. Would it make sense to run for another lets say 8 Years?
And when does RAN plan to decomission the ANZACS? Iknow that last has just recently been built,just curious

The old DDG's gave over 30 year’s service. Considering the cost of the upgrade program I would hope that the FFG's would be good for at least 30 years which would take Melbourne to 2022 and Newcastle to 2023. Projections of future RAN strength (Parliamentary briefing notes, etc) that I have read, however, indicate that the FFG's will all be decommissioned when the 3rd AWD is commissioned. If the manpower situation improves I think it would make sense to keep them whilst they still have useful life in them.

I would expect all the Anzacs to still be in service until around 2025, when they would begin to be phased out but there have been suggestions in this and other forums that the class suffers from topweight problems which may limit future upgrades. If this is a serious problem earlier replacement may be desirable.

Tas

 

[KiwiRob]

Would the Canberras be big enough to convert to CTOL ops, for a start the flight deck isn't angled, they just look too small to me.

 

[FutureTank]

Would the Canberras be big enough to convert to CTOL ops, for a start the flight deck isn't angled, they just look too small to me.

I'm assuming the Spanish naval architects know what they are doing since no provision is made for the changes in flight deck configuration despite explicit inclusion of provision for operating F-35Bs off them.

 

[Tasman]

Would the Canberras be big enough to convert to CTOL ops, for a start the flight deck isn't angled, they just look too small to me.

When the Spanish replace Príncipe de Asturias they will need to decide between a VSTOL carrier, in which case a modified, faster version of Juan Carlos I would be an option, or a CTOL carrier. If they go for CTOL they will need a much larger ship (35,000 tonnes plus). CVL's like the old Melbourne struggled to operate effectively with jet aircraft because of their small size and low speed. Even the larger RN Hermes proved too small for effective CTOL operations. IMO, the LHD's are too small and too slow to be converted for CTOL. It would make far more sense to design a new ship from scratch if a CTOL carrier is desired.

Tas

 

[barra]

Never said they were, however unguided rockets are not part of the RAAF inventory I understand...

AD is mostly right about the rockets, they are not routinely used by the RAAF. Rockets (CRV-7 I think ?) were used routinely on Hornets many years ago. The SUU's that the Hornets use to drop BDU's have 4 rocket launcher tubes on each SUU. To include rockets in an A-G program requires getting the rockets off Army and now that they have Tigers I am unsure if they use the same rockets or not. They were also considered somewhat unpredictable, not as many safety barriers as other munitions which could lead to an launch on the ground. I believe 3SQN did an A-G program at Tindal a couple of years ago with rockets, which is the last time I can recall. They don't have an operational capability though, the SUU's are for training only.
GBU's off a Hawk, now thats interesting. I suppose with buddy lasing from another aircraft or someone on the ground it would be possible. Unlikely though.

Hooroo

 

[Aussie Digger]

I thought first deliveries were in the late 90s?
Unguided rockets and a 30mm cannon are not something to sneeze at...
However there is a much larger number of stores that can be used on the Hawk, although probably not in RAAF inventory.

True, the only weapons in RAAF inventory certified for the Hawks (that I am aware of) are: unguided Mk 82's, AIM-9M and the 30mm podded gun.

Even the 30mm is rarely carried from my understanding and I have only ever seen 1 single photograph of a RAAF Hawk with it strapped on. (I subsequently posted same to the gallery here).

Whilst I'm sure the Hawk Mk 127 could use other ordnance, a distinct lack of sensor systems hold it back from being a truly useful CAS/COIN and as I mentioned earlier and got a nice assist from Barra , RAAF doesn't operate many of these other systems that could be employed from them.

Edited: I said stores originally, but obviously Hawks have access to external tanks etc and probably "luggage pods" or some such too, but I don't think these are applicable to the current discussion.

 

[McTaff]

My half a cent worth is only to agree; Hawks are training aircraft and don't have anything on them apart from very basic weapons for training. (For giggles, you could also fit sensors and weapons to PC-9's... but we'd never do it for a combat role, they lack anything sensor-wise too!).

Hawks are just a stepping stone training-wise.

F-35B's are the only reasonable fixed-wing multi-role asset worth placing on a flight deck these days, and it'd be an amazing surprise to see us purchase any.

Hey FutureTank: 'maritime environmental effects' could be expanded to "Residual maritime environmental deposits", but it is stretching it a bit.

 

[FutureTank]

My half a cent worth is only to agree; Hawks are training aircraft and don't have anything on them apart from very basic weapons for training. (For giggles, you could also fit sensors and weapons to PC-9's... but we'd never do it for a combat role, they lack anything sensor-wise too!).

Hawks are just a stepping stone training-wise.

F-35B's are the only reasonable fixed-wing multi-role asset worth placing on a flight deck these days, and it'd be an amazing surprise to see us purchase any.

Hey FutureTank: 'maritime environmental effects' could be expanded to "Residual maritime environmental deposits", but it is stretching it a bit.

I have to dig around, but I do recall Hawks being mentioned in COIN configuration, but I can't recall which country does that. I only remember it because some sort of airframe strengthening had to be performed on BAe advice.

"Residual maritime environmental deposits"
I think its sounds more geological then engineering expression
but this morning I did think of the other word...which should have been obvious of course....CORROSIVE maritime environmental effects

 

[Aussie Digger]

I have to dig around, but I do recall Hawks being mentioned in COIN configuration, but I can't recall which country does that. I only remember it because some sort of airframe strengthening had to be performed on BAe advice.

"Residual maritime environmental deposits"
I think its sounds more geological then engineering expression
but this morning I did think of the other word...which should have been obvious of course....CORROSIVE maritime environmental effects

It's probably more appropriate to continue any further Hawk discussions in the Air Force threads...

 

[KiwiRob]

I'm assuming the Spanish naval architects know what they are doing since no provision is made for the changes in flight deck configuration despite explicit inclusion of provision for operating F-35Bs off them.

Sorry I was thinking about operating the Goshawk of them as previously discussed not the F35B, I don't think the ships have been designed nor could they be easily converted to CTOL operations, that would require an angled flightdeck which the Canberra class doesn't have.

 

[FutureTank]

Sorry I was thinking about operating the Goshawk of them as previously discussed not the F35B, I don't think the ships have been designed nor could they be easily converted to CTOL operations, that would require an angled flightdeck which the Canberra class doesn't have.

Having an angled deck is not really related to what type of JET aircraft are operated off it because all combat jets are likely to require longer runways on return from missions, hence use of arrestors.

Essentially what they allow is to have two decks on one ship to launch more aircraft.
Ski-jump on the other hand only assists any type of aircraft being operated in the amount of stores they are able to leave the deck with, assuming a short deck. It just so happens that jets with vectored thrust engines can take greater advantage of this bit of naval architecture then other jets.

 

[icelord]

The old DDG's gave over 30 year’s service. Considering the cost of the upgrade program I would hope that the FFG's would be good for at least 30 years which would take Melbourne to 2022 and Newcastle to 2023. Projections of future RAN strength (Parliamentary briefing notes, etc) that I have read, however, indicate that the FFG's will all be decommissioned when the 3rd AWD is commissioned. If the manpower situation improves I think it would make sense to keep them whilst they still have useful life in them.

I would expect all the Anzacs to still be in service until around 2025, when they would begin to be phased out but there have been suggestions in this and other forums that the class suffers from topweight problems which may limit future upgrades. If this is a serious problem earlier replacement may be desirable.

Tas

It was suggested that the Anzac replacements would start construction around 2020-21, this was the Navy Leagues case when proposing a forth AWD, as it would fill any gap between construction and allow for skills to be kept in Australia for Shipbuilding.But in Aus cost blowouts and extended constuction should cover the gap nicely