Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Preceptor]

Keeping the RAN thread open

Members, I have just reopened the RAAF thread which had been closed for three days due to overly heated discussions/arguments between members on the possibility of F-35B use aboard RAN LHDs. That thread was closed for three days to allow a cooling off period. I do not wish to suddenly see that same issue resurface in this thread. Please keep any debating or disagreements polite and civilized.

No reply to this particular message is needed in this thread. Those members with specific questions are advised to PM for a response.

-Preceptor

 

[Markus40]

Good on yer Ozzy, i think most of us here on this forum believe you on this one. There is no reason that the Canberra cant operate with a limited number of F35bs each along with Task Force Hardware and weapons and consumables. The Canberras are designed to accommodate an assortment of capabilities that support a landing or similar. From the information i have there is no reason not to have at least 6 F35bs each Canberra for air support and CAP. The ramp is not a fantasy fixture, but is there for the purpose to support F35bs in the combat role.

It is interesting to note that the MV Atlantic Conveyer and her sister ship MV Atlantic Causeway , the British support ships, did indeed carry RAF and RN Harriers between Ascension Is and the Falklands along with Chinooks and Wessex Helicopters. The British did use them as additional aircraft to the war effort and were added to both Hermes and Invincible existing complement of Harriers. It does show that the Australian Navy will have the capacity to use the same type of measures for adding additional merchant fleet capacity to on load STOVL F35bs and helos when they are acquired. And you are right when you say that forward operating bases can easily be set up to off load the existing squadrons of F35bs and helos if required to make way for added numbers and room for more aircraft from Merchant vessels. Cheers.

So you think we're being premature by discussing the F35b's capability or the RAAF purchasing some because the production model hasnt flown yet? What you think there might be some drastic reason why it wont, especially given the organisations relying on the platform (USMC, RAN, Armada, Italian Navy)? Were we being premature discussing the F35A before last year because AA1 hadnt flown yet????

And the 3rd vessel doesnt need to be a dedicated "carrier", the Canberras are more than capable as operating as a CVL without any major modifications. IF the threat required it, you could use all 3 in a surge operation with one operating as a CVL, with 12 F35b's, AEW MRH 90's, Seahawks ect. You could also use 3 in a surge operation with all 3 operating as LHD's If the need required it.

Just because in normal operations you can have 2 LHD's out and one in maintinance doesnt mean you cant launch all 3 in a surge operation. You wont be able to maintain a force of three for an extended period on time. However if your looking at a falklands type scenario you could use all 3 for the initial operation (the warfighting bit) and as soon as a rough airstrip is is completed you could disembark the air wing and personell and send the late one home for touch ups. But then again even talking of such a thing is pure fantasy huh?

 

[Tasman]

More and more it seems to me that acquiring a third LHD as the additional sealift ship and a squadron of F-35Bs (with or without the third LHD) is the best way forward. The third LHD plus F-35Bs would enable the amphibious ships to be used exactly as suggested by AGRA, with one operating as an occasional sealift ship and as an occasional carrier, whilst at least two should always be available to transport and support the amphibious deployment force.

I disagree somewhat with AGRA in that I think that even with only 2 LHDs there might be occasions when the embarkment of F-35Bs (plus AEW and ASW helos) would be useful. This could be in support of a smaller amphibious force, for a specific operation as part of a coalition effort, or for independent sea control or air support operations in areas where the ADF has difficulties in finding suitable land bases. I accept that there would be difficulties filling this role as well as the primary LHD mission with a 2 ship force but I would like to see the RAN and RAAF at least develop contingency plans along these lines backed by occasional deployments for training purposes. However, the third LHD seems to make so much sense that I think it would be a shame not to pursue that option.

Tas

 

[StingrayOZ]

3 LHD's would be fantastic. Australia would have amphibious capabilities that very few countries could match (US and UK, only?). Australia would be able to act independantly and deploy a full strength of forces even under contested landings (with F-35B's).

They are large flexable ships. They have a jump, two well located lifts, a huge hanger, weapon lifts etc. They are more than a amphibious ship with aircraft pretentions. Having 2 ships would also increase command capabilities, hospital capabilities, etc.

I would like to see 3 x Canberra LHD's. But joined with a Roro and 2 fast large cats. This would take some of the load off the LHD's and enable one to operate as a pure carrier in a operation. Then we would have the capability of amphibious deployment and amphibious assult.

 

[barra]

The thing that I think is interesting in this whole debate of possible "carrier like" operations by the RAN with F-35B's is the question of who will control the fighters.
IIRC the original concept of 100 JSF was for 4 operational sqn's and one OCU(role TBCO by 6 sqn) Training Sqn with the rest being 2~3 A/C to ARDU and some attrition airframes. I am assuming that the correct number of airframes per SQN is about 18. The model of 4 operational SQN's allows for 1 to be deployed, 1 to be in work-up, 1 to carry out normal flying training and 1 to be recovering from operations. This is the minimum number of SQN's required to sustain a SQN on operations. I think the RAAF brass will jealously protect this model and not want to see it watered down to allow for either a Navy buy of F-35B's or converting part of the RAAF buy to -B's and thus upset the 4 SQN model.
The only way I see this happening is through extra funding, 12-15 F-35B's and 4-5 AEW Choppers as well as the ship itself isn't going to be cheap. Add in all the extras like GSE, facilities, training, personnel and it just keeps growing.
Don't get me wrong I would love to see the RAN get a new "carrier" and all the toys to go with it but not at the expense of the model which is the RAAF's minimum requirement to deploy and sustain a SQN on operations overseas. As I have stated before, I would love to be a fly on the wall if this proposal starts to gather some momentum and the brass are left to argue it out. Of course if Rudd wins the election then forget about F-35B's and a 3rd LHD.

Hooroo

 

[Tasman]

The thing that I think is interesting in this whole debate of possible "carrier like" operations by the RAN with F-35B's is the question of who will control the fighters.
IIRC the original concept of 100 JSF was for 4 operational sqn's and one OCU(role TBCO by 6 sqn) Training Sqn with the rest being 2~3 A/C to ARDU and some attrition airframes. I am assuming that the correct number of airframes per SQN is about 18. The model of 4 operational SQN's allows for 1 to be deployed, 1 to be in work-up, 1 to carry out normal flying training and 1 to be recovering from operations. This is the minimum number of SQN's required to sustain a SQN on operations. I think the RAAF brass will jealously protect this model and not want to see it watered down to allow for either a Navy buy of F-35B's or converting part of the RAAF buy to -B's and thus upset the 4 SQN model.
The only way I see this happening is through extra funding, 12-15 F-35B's and 4-5 AEW Choppers as well as the ship itself isn't going to be cheap. Add in all the extras like GSE, facilities, training, personnel and it just keeps growing.
Don't get me wrong I would love to see the RAN get a new "carrier" and all the toys to go with it but not at the expense of the model which is the RAAF's minimum requirement to deploy and sustain a SQN on operations overseas. As I have stated before, I would love to be a fly on the wall if this proposal starts to gather some momentum and the brass are left to argue it out. Of course if Rudd wins the election then forget about F-35B's and a 3rd LHD.

Hooroo

Sounds like the sort of arguments that will undoubtably come from the RAAF!

I think practically everyone (apart perhaps from organisations like the Navy League) is agreed that the RAAF would be the most logical service to operate any F-35Bs ordered by Australia. Apart from the cost involved in duplication of effort that would be involved in establishing a FAA squadron, it is likely that operations from an LHD would be 'part time'. If the RAN had a dedicated carrier capable of deploying a sizeable airgroup (e.g. something along the lines of the CVF) then the reforming of a fixed wing component in the FAA might be worthwhile but even then we only have to look at the FAA's previous experience with fixed wing operations. Apart from the early carrier days from 1948 to 1956 it was unable to attract sufficient share of the limited defence aviation budget to purchase sufficient numbers of aircraft for the carrier force. The FAA was in constant competition with the RAAF and inevitably the RAAF won the 'battle'.

Re integrating the F-35B into the 4 squadron force, the following is an extract from a post by AGRA in the RAAF thread which I think demonstrates that the concept is feasible:

Royal Australian Air Force Discussions and Updates Post 116 by AGRA:

The F-35 provides the ideal platform because of its highly capable offensive systems and the commonality between F-35A and F-35B. Workforce can go from one to the other, so their won’t be an isolated little community of STOVL only personnel as their would be in a single Harrier squadron and as there is now with Caribou. The idea of equipping Naval Aviation FEWG with STOVL fighters is dreaming. Duplication in these skills between two services is highly inefficient. Equipping a RAAF squadron with STOVL and carrier capability does make sense. Particular as for the RAAF the additional skills burden will be on the pilots. The way roles are broken down is all deck handling and ATC duties are conducted by the ship’s crew. Most of the LHD’s crew will be deck handlers to support Army helos, adding RAAF STOVL fighters to their job won’t be onerous. The squadron only deploys its aircrew, maintainers and ops personnel.

I hope that the training of some RAAF SH pilots to operate from carriers will develop an interest within the RAAF in the use of carriers and/or LHDs as a way of increasing its operational flexibility.

Tas

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The only problem i have with an RAAF F35b purchase is the fact that it would be instead of F35A's. In this case i think we're talking about 24~26 F35b's equiping no 1 & 6 squadrons. Now the F35b gives the ADF great expeditionary capability. Apart from the ability to opperate off an LHD STOVL gives the RAAF the ability to deploy allmost anywere (i.e. were there is no 1000m hardend runway within 400NM). However the F35B is significantly less capable compared to the A model. The only question that needs to be answered (apart from the additional cost) is wether the benifits of expeditionary capability can offset the reduced range and payload in a "defence of australia" situation. Although in the CAS role due to the basing flexability the "B" will be more capable.

Now i'm not saying this is my personal opinion, but its a serious question. We all jump up and down at the idea (I do anyway) at the idea of RAAF fast jts operating off an RAN flat top, but to be honest the thought of diluting the RAAF's strike and air superiority capability in the name of a fast jet expeditionary ability does raise a tiny touch of doubt in the back of my mind. I would feel safer with 4 squadrons of F35A's between me and any potential "enemy". However given the fact that the F35's "teeth" so to speak are common to all 3 variants (LO, networking and exellent avionics) you couldnt argue that the "b" would not be usefull, let alone lethal in a conventional DOA scenario.

Anyways its something that needs to be considered.

 

[barra]

Well said Ozzy. My whole point was that the RAAF needs Op. 4 Sqns to be able to effectively deploy one on a rotational basis. Despite obvious commonalities the -B is very different with respect to lift fan and all the moving parts, so sub specialists will be needed.(some duplication?). If we go the -B option I hope the order is expanded to ~110-115 aircraft. Anyway got to do that thing called "work", expand later.

Hooroo

 

[Tasman]

The thing that I think is interesting in this whole debate of possible "carrier like" operations by the RAN with F-35B's is the question of who will control the fighters.
IIRC the original concept of 100 JSF was for 4 operational sqn's and one OCU(role TBCO by 6 sqn) Training Sqn with the rest being 2~3 A/C to ARDU and some attrition airframes. I am assuming that the correct number of airframes per SQN is about 18. The model of 4 operational SQN's allows for 1 to be deployed, 1 to be in work-up, 1 to carry out normal flying training and 1 to be recovering from operations. This is the minimum number of SQN's required to sustain a SQN on operations. I think the RAAF brass will jealously protect this model and not want to see it watered down to allow for either a Navy buy of F-35B's or converting part of the RAAF buy to -B's and thus upset the 4 SQN model.
The only way I see this happening is through extra funding, 12-15 F-35B's and 4-5 AEW Choppers as well as the ship itself isn't going to be cheap. Add in all the extras like GSE, facilities, training, personnel and it just keeps growing.
Don't get me wrong I would love to see the RAN get a new "carrier" and all the toys to go with it but not at the expense of the model which is the RAAF's minimum requirement to deploy and sustain a SQN on operations overseas. As I have stated before, I would love to be a fly on the wall if this proposal starts to gather some momentum and the brass are left to argue it out. Of course if Rudd wins the election then forget about F-35B's and a 3rd LHD.

Hooroo

I am interested in your comment that four squadrons are needed to maintain one on operations. I had always thought that a three squadron force was designed to achieve this. However, I understand your reasoning. I would argue, however, that a squadron of F-35Bs could take its place in any ongoing rotation, either operating from conventional land bases, or RAN, USN (or even RN) LHDs or CVs.

Having said that I concede that your knowledge of the RAAF is no doubt streets ahead of mine.

I would also love to see additional funding for a fifth squadron of F-35s but I suspect there may be more pressing needs within the ADF that are currently not funded or included in the DCP. This includes an expanded artillery force, more Tiger ARHs, more naval and army multi role helos, more air refuelling aircraft, Anzac replacements and perhaps a naval AEW helo, amongst other things.

Perhaps we should press for retention of the FA-18F squadron to serve alongside 4 x F-35 squadrons until funding for a fifth F-35 squadron is possible. If a fifth squadron does prove possible I would like to see the possibility of it being a joint RAAF/RAN squadron considered. Along with a third LHD that would ensure Australia's capacity to operate F-35s at sea when required.

Tas

 

[barra]

The model I am talking about has more flex than a 3 SQN force. After operations it takes some time to reconstitute a force. Consider a 3 month deployment with ongoing rotations of say 14 fighters each (much like Op Falconer) All major servicings are done before you go, so you don't need to do them in theatre. On return to Aust. all aircraft need servicing at the same time (can distribute this hurt throughout the rest of the force), personnel need to take leave and be with their families and then you are straight back into aircrew training and work up for the next rotation. This is one of the problems with the current three squadron Hornet force, a fourth sqn relieves a lot of the pressure.

Maybe one way to achieve a F-35B sqn is to operate 5 smaller sqn's of 16 aircraft (80 A/C, 64 -A's and 16 -B's ) each and a training unit (18 A/C all -A's) and ARDU operates 2 -A's. The -B's would operate their own training flight within the unit. That is pilots qualify on F-35A's and then do extra conversion training at their Op unit. Training could even be done with the RN or USMC. So it is not beyond the realms of possibility. As long as we get 100 F-35's then a mix is workable, but I still think the RAAF would want to be the controlling service. Some RAAFies still haven't gotten over losing the helicopters to the army. (we did do a better job maintaining them)

And yes Tas, I must admit I am biased towards the RAAF.

Hooroo

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Personally i'd prefer the idea of having 4 full squadrons of F35A's (24 each) in the same model we have now, plus a small aditional squadron ofF35B's, say 16 pluss a couple for training so 18~20. Now i doubt the govt is going to splurge on an increase of some 20% of their fast jet purchase, but it would be ideal.

 

[Tasman]

Maybe one way to achieve a F-35B sqn is to operate 5 smaller sqn's of 16 aircraft (80 A/C, 64 -A's and 16 -B's ) each and a training unit (18 A/C all -A's) and ARDU operates 2 -A's. The -B's would operate their own training flight within the unit. That is pilots qualify on F-35A's and then do extra conversion training at their Op unit. Training could even be done with the RN or USMC. So it is not beyond the realms of possibility. As long as we get 100 F-35's then a mix is workable, but I still think the RAAF would want to be the controlling service. Some RAAFies still haven't gotten over losing the helicopters to the army. (we did do a better job maintaining them)

That looks like it could be workable Barra.

I have to admit I am biased towards the RAN but I could live with the RAAF maintaining control of fixed wing assets until such time as it regains a dedicated carrier force, something that is unlikely to occur in the forseeable future.

I feel the same as you re numbers of F-35's Ozzy, but like you say, it is unlikely that funding will be found. Then again who would have predicted early last year that the RAAF would now be operating C-17s and would have Super Hornets on order!

Tas

 

[Markus40]

Im Curious. The Australian government seems to be commited on
100 x F35as, right? The last purchase of combat fighters was 75 x F18s. Why would it not be feasible to purchase 75 x F35as and 25 x F35bs to equip a couple of RAN squadrons?

The USMC operate the AV-8B as a seperate entity to the USAF or USN. So why shouldnt the RAN have its own dedicated fighter squadrons x 2 and rotate the RAAF pilots to fly the F35b for the RAN when required ? And why couldnt there be a dedicated RAN squadron that flies primarily for the RAN? Yet can interoperate with the RAAF. ? Cheers.

Personally i'd prefer the idea of having 4 full squadrons of F35A's (24 each) in the same model we have now, plus a small aditional squadron ofF35B's, say 16 pluss a couple for training so 18~20. Now i doubt the govt is going to splurge on an increase of some 20% of their fast jet purchase, but it would be ideal.

 

[barra]

Current number of A/C per SQN is 18. Historically each hornet unit normally operates 17 singles and a dual, however HUG has made a mess of that. I don't think the numbers of JSF will be increased, whatever is worked out will be within the 100 already flagged. Personally I think the odds are against an F-35B order anyway. As for who will operate them if ordered, well that is a whole other can of worms.
The RAAF seems to be constantly needing to justify operating certain types. For eg. some people say the Navy should operate the AP-3C's and the Army wants to control the Caribous, Hercs and C-17s (??). (They all but do anyway by controlling tasking orders.) The helicopters were transfered to Army thanks to Kim Beazley and then Army promptly treated them like landrovers and created all sorts of problems (remember the blackhawk fleets problems years ago). The problem with Armys attitude is you are a soldier first and technician/aviator second. Air Force dictates Military Aviation policy in Australia through DGTA and have the best maintenance culture of the three services.(I may be a little biased ) Witness recent maintenance blunders in the other services (Seaking, ghost signatures)
Anyway, here endeth my rant.

Hooroo

 

[icelord]

So you think we're being premature by discussing the F35b's capability or the RAAF purchasing some because the production model hasnt flown yet? What you think there might be some drastic reason why it wont, especially given the organisations relying on the platform (USMC, RAN, Armada, Italian Navy)? Were we being premature discussing the F35A before last year because AA1 hadnt flown yet????

no no no, u missed the point. We are about to have election between a govt. determined on the F-35, and one who wants to look at alternative 4th gen platforms. Lets see if we can go A before B.

And the 3rd vessel doesnt need to be a dedicated "carrier", the Canberras are more than capable as operating as a CVL without any major modifications. IF the threat required it, you could use all 3 in a surge operation with one operating as a CVL, with 12 F35b's, AEW MRH 90's, Seahawks ect. You could also use 3 in a surge operation with all 3 operating as LHD's If the need required it.

The problem i was pointing to was that by turning one into a carrier, u take away capabilities of another. JP 2048 wanted 2 troop carriers with Helo launching pads. By turning one into a carrier in a time(if) it may be needed, we reduce the load carried on the LHD and the operations it can conduct, with fuel, personnel,troops and helos carried, we move it away from its role, a 3rd doesn't take away this in a "surge" its an add on with extra troops for ops as well as CAP.

Just because in normal operations you can have 2 LHD's out and one in maintinance doesnt mean you cant launch all 3 in a surge operation. You wont be able to maintain a force of three for an extended period on time. However if your looking at a falklands type scenario you could use all 3 for the initial operation (the warfighting bit) and as soon as a rough airstrip is is completed you could disembark the air wing and personell and send the late one home for touch ups. But then again even talking of such a thing is pure fantasy huh

fantasy and reality mix regularly, look at South Sydney in the finals...

 

[Andy in West Oz]

My first post here so please forgive the dribble of a rank amateur. Over the years I have been following the changing fleet of the RAN off and on. I'm excited by the LHDs and the DDGs that we'll soon have but I often wonder about our ability to crew such ships. Don't get me wrong, I think the RAN should be a bigger version of its well respected and capable current form.

Fair enough, Tobruk, Kanimbla and Manoora are reaching the end of their service lives so there's crew numbers for the LHDs. I imagine the numbers for the DDGs would come from the retiring FFGs but a third LHD to be crewed would be a hard task surely?

I'm proud of where we're heading with the RAN (although I'm not sure what a Rudd govt might have up its sleeve to potentially stuff things up). Don't get me started on what's happened to the RN!

You guys have got your fingers on the pulse. I'll learn a lot here.

Andy

 

[battlensign]

My first post here so please forgive the dribble of a rank amateur. Over the years I have been following the changing fleet of the RAN off and on. I'm excited by the LHDs and the DDGs that we'll soon have but I often wonder about our ability to crew such ships. Don't get me wrong, I think the RAN should be a bigger version of its well respected and capable current form.

Fair enough, Tobruk, Kanimbla and Manoora are reaching the end of their service lives so there's crew numbers for the LHDs. I imagine the numbers for the DDGs would come from the retiring FFGs but a third LHD to be crewed would be a hard task surely?

I'm proud of where we're heading with the RAN (although I'm not sure what a Rudd govt might have up its sleeve to potentially stuff things up). Don't get me started on what's happened to the RN!

You guys have got your fingers on the pulse. I'll learn a lot here.

Andy

First might I say "Welcome Andy".

I am relatively new here myself.....though I was a lurker in the background for a significant period.

You are right on the money.......the easy answer is that at the present time we would struggle to man a third LHD or fourth AWD. My sources in MHQ tell me that we are desperately short of trades people, skilled submariners, and PW Officers (something like 18 verses the 40 needed).

However, you may or may not have noticed that these two Aquisitions programs (LHD & AWD) are not to arrive before 2012. The Government has recently been adding funding to the ADF to increase recruitment and retention of people. In the Late 80's and early 90's we lost a lot of people and that has really hurt the ADF (at 22 I am probably too young to speak authoritatively on that subject - perhaps someone can help?), though we have been getting some of the equipment we need now.

Some recent initiatives include the Defence Gap Year program, increases in wages and allowances and a subsidy program for Defence personnel in relation to mortgages that seems to be implemented WEF 1/7/08 for those who have served for minimum periods of time (4/8/12 years permanent and 8/12/16 reserve). It is hoped that a combination of these programs will bring back the people numbers (and SKILLS) desperately needed.

The harping on about three LHDs and a fourth AWD is not a result of a failure by the members here to recognise the crewing issues, indeed the more knowledgable of us are acutely aware of the issue and its significance. However, the discussion of such additional aquisitions (over and above DC plans in many instances) reflects what the members here feel are minimum numbers required to achieve the sorts of objectives that the government seems to have set for itself. 3 LHDs provides for 1 operational generally, and a surge capacity of two. 4 AWD's allows for up to three in times of trouble and for 2 to be available more frequently. Obviously these ideas are conditional on more, and skilled, people however there is some time to sort this out and hopefully the recent initiatives will work.

If I have missed anything here guys, feel free to add as necessary .

Cheers,

Brett.

P.S wanna solve recruiting in one relatively cheap stroke of a pen? (Ban the Class II Junior Sailor's Cap)

 

[Tasman]

My first post here so please forgive the dribble of a rank amateur. Over the years I have been following the changing fleet of the RAN off and on. I'm excited by the LHDs and the DDGs that we'll soon have but I often wonder about our ability to crew such ships. Don't get me wrong, I think the RAN should be a bigger version of its well respected and capable current form.

Fair enough, Tobruk, Kanimbla and Manoora are reaching the end of their service lives so there's crew numbers for the LHDs. I imagine the numbers for the DDGs would come from the retiring FFGs but a third LHD to be crewed would be a hard task surely?

I'm proud of where we're heading with the RAN (although I'm not sure what a Rudd govt might have up its sleeve to potentially stuff things up). Don't get me started on what's happened to the RN!

You guys have got your fingers on the pulse. I'll learn a lot here.

Andy

I thought Battlensign answered your concerns pretty well.

Re the manning situation there is no doubt that the shortages of skilled personnel is one of the biggest issues facing the navy (and the rest of the ADF for that matter). It is not so much recruitment but retention of trained people that is the biggest problem.

So far as present acquisitions are concerned, four AWD's (if a fourth is ordered) will replace the FFGs's on a one for one basis and will absorb their crews. Likewise the LHDs, which have a comparatively small crew for vessels of their size and complexity, will be manned by personnel from the first two amphibious ships to be decommissioned. If a third LHD is acquired it is likely that only two would be operational most of the time. The third LHD would probably take on the sealift role when required, manned by a reduced crew. For surge operations all three LHD's might be used. Those of us who have a vision of fixed wing aviation operating once again from RAN ships also hope that the third ship would be available as an aviation support platform in which case additional crew would be needed.

The old carrier Sydney, when it was operating as a troop transport and training ship in its later years, had a reduced permanent crew and took on reservists to round up the complement when needed. A third LHD could be similarly manned.

Tas

 

[icelord]

Just an add on regarding Crews. There are 5 FFG and 4 AWD. The Adelaide carries 186 crew, with 210 when Helo embarked. The AWD is to have around the same crew numbers, depending on "australianisation" creates a 2nd Hanger as well(this is doubtful)

 

[Andy in West Oz]

Thanks guys, you've answered my questions and "concerns" to the letter. Might souond a bit odd, but I feel relieved that there seems to be a multitude of solutions out there and I agree that with our increased commitments, the 3LHDs and 4 AWDs would be a nice fit and, from what you've said, should be capable of being crewed effectively. I guess here is another bonus of the F100 (I've read the entire AWD thread and the F100 has grown on me!) in that it should require less crew.

Exciting times for the RAN. Am totally blown away by the AdelaideFFGs getting a VLS mount. Have I read that right?

Love talking about this stuff and also love reading and listening to learn so thanks again. Hope to contribute something intelligent in the future!