Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[LancasterBomber]

Interesting given that some of the worst performing JWACs (aka eternal JWACs) i have seen have not only met the bachelors mark, but have doctorates.

On the flip side some of the best operators have no uni qualifications whatsoever.

Yeah point taken. :duel

Anyway thought this was some interesting research on potential hull design.

If we want to go deep and improve impact survivability then it stands to reason we should be paying fairly close attention to how nature does it best. Anyway i thought it was an interesting article with potential relevance to sub design.

Deep-sea snail shell could inspire next-gen armour - life - 18 January 2010 - New Scientist

 

[StingrayOZ]

How resiliant is the JCI flight-deck? Is there not an issue with the Osprey's turbos heat signature warping unprepared surfaces?

I don't believe the JCI deck has been surfaced. I would think the JCI would definately have a deck able to withstand the heat from a osprey (as it will have to handle harriers which should do more damage). I would imagine the Canberra class would use the same surfacing. (S.K amphibs also use surfacing that is heat resistant even tho they can't use fixed wing aircraft).

The Canberra class should be compatable with Harriers, F-35B, Osprey. The OV-10 is interesting, however with out a in production type it will never be concidered. The problem with the JCI is that is very flexable and therefore possible units deployed from it is quiet large.

 

[agc33e]

Let me correct that the Pda has two munition lifts, at least one of them +4000kgs, the Lhd has one munition lift, so at least should be +4000kgs.

Let me resume a 2 harrier versus 2 eurofighter typhoon, just to make some justice for the harriers which dont have much prestige sometimes, exercise done by the 9th squadron, the spanish harriers, versus spanish eurofighters, from the paper magazine Fuerza Naval, the harriers are with the radars and weapons are sidewinders and amraams in both jets, i suppose, eurofighters in the north, harriers in the south, harriers under their electronic umbrella, like a awd radar etc, the controller of the harriers, eurofighters act offensively entering in the zone of awareness of the harrier controller, this comunicates the path of the eurofighters to the harriers, these intercept the eurofither 1 in an advantageous way and the controller confirms it is hostile, harrier 1 launches one amraam to eurofighter 1, and harrier 2 searches for eurofigter 2, he finds it, controller confirms it is hostile, he shots a missile, harrier 1 missile destroyed eurofighter 1, eurofighter 2 evades missile from harrier 2, now superiority for harriers, harrier 2 goes away to gain space to launch another missile and harrier 1 tries to search eurofighter 2, but eurofighter 2 has approached harrier 1 and launches a sidewinder, and harrier 1 is lost, then harrier 2 goes up fast, his controller tells him where is eurofighter 2 and quickly sees it, wait to enter in distance and launches amraam, the eurofighter tries to evade it but it is destroyed, so 2-1 for harriers (in their electronic umbrella).

Also outside their umbrella could do things then.


Cheers.

 

[winnyfield]

NH90 Frigate has arrived in Australia for evaluations.

Antonov An124 delivers NH90 NATO Frigate helicopters | The Courier-Mail

 

[spoz]

NH90 Frigate has arrived in Australia for evaluations.

Antonov An124 delivers NH90 NATO Frigate helicopters | The Courier-Mail

Well, on a sales pitch anyway.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Any sign of any contenders also comming out? I see the manufacturer has also released a press release about the delivery NH90, The New Reference for the Armed Forces

Atleast we are in a better situation than the dutch with the helos being too big/heavy for the frigates.

Given that it fits, it has over 80% commonality with the army and navies existing MRH90's and being a very modern and capable airframe suitable for multirole duties it looks very pleasing. I would imagine with essentially 1 type operating in the RAN/ARMY a LHD could be preped with spare engines, gearboxes, etc allowing for longer deployements and higher levels of operation.

The fact that it barely fits hangered in a frigate shouldn't be a massive weakness, once we have the LHD it will be a fairly easy job to move helos around on deployment for routine maintence. With UAV's, lone frigates shouldn't have to use naval helicopters quiet as much.

The closer I look at it the OV-10 doesn't make much sense. The Tiger seems to be very strong in comparison. Range is simular (tiger with external tanks), The OV-10 is about 100kmph faster, but then again it can't hover, slowly crawl, quickly move about, doesn't have the 30mm firepower in a turret, isn't armoured etc. Thats assuming the OV-10 electronics can be bought up to Tiger standards, and it can be upgraded to fire hellfires etc.

I suppose it would be cheaper to operate. If a modern OV-10 is put into production it may be worth concidering. 500Lb guided bombs, 4 x M134 or 2 xM61, hellfires, stingers, decent radar, coms, EW, armoured against atleast 12.7mm etc.

 

[riksavage]

Any sign of any contenders also comming out? I see the manufacturer has also released a press release about the delivery NH90, The New Reference for the Armed Forces

Atleast we are in a better situation than the dutch with the helos being too big/heavy for the frigates.

Given that it fits, it has over 80% commonality with the army and navies existing MRH90's and being a very modern and capable airframe suitable for multirole duties it looks very pleasing. I would imagine with essentially 1 type operating in the RAN/ARMY a LHD could be preped with spare engines, gearboxes, etc allowing for longer deployements and higher levels of operation.

The fact that it barely fits hangered in a frigate shouldn't be a massive weakness, once we have the LHD it will be a fairly easy job to move helos around on deployment for routine maintence. With UAV's, lone frigates shouldn't have to use naval helicopters quiet as much.

The closer I look at it the OV-10 doesn't make much sense. The Tiger seems to be very strong in comparison. Range is simular (tiger with external tanks), The OV-10 is about 100kmph faster, but then again it can't hover, slowly crawl, quickly move about, doesn't have the 30mm firepower in a turret, isn't armoured etc. Thats assuming the OV-10 electronics can be bought up to Tiger standards, and it can be upgraded to fire hellfires etc.

I suppose it would be cheaper to operate. If a modern OV-10 is put into production it may be worth concidering. 500Lb guided bombs, 4 x M134 or 2 xM61, hellfires, stingers, decent radar, coms, EW, armoured against atleast 12.7mm etc.

Why not opt for a folding wing marinised EMB 314 Super Tucano, newish airframe, short take off and landing, in production and now being used by US SF units in A-Stan for CAS. You can buy 12 x Super Tucano's for the price of 1 x Typhoon. Cheap, easy to maintain, can be flown by NCO's and excellent for close air in an asymmetrical environment.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Why not opt for a folding wing marinised EMB 314 Super Tucano

It has a top speed 150km faster than a OV-10 and 250kmph faster than a Tiger. It is an interesting option. Range is simular to a tiger with fuel pods. I would imagine the Tucano would a little more efficently at slower speeds (loitering).

Still $9 million a peice (wikipedia again, can that be right?) it doesn't seem as cheap. But I would hazard to stay its cheaper to operate than a tiger. It would seem concievable to operate several off a LHD without a large drain on resources. With a decent cruising speed of over 500kmph it would seem to be an ideal aircraft to eyeball smugglers, threats, etc and a sizeable improvement (twice as fast, three+ times the range) over the tiger.

Could be interesting depending on the enviroment. Could be useful as a anti piracy/drug running aircraft. I noticed the indonesians have Super Tucano to replace the OV-10's.

There seems to be a bit of a rebirth in these type of aircraft. It will be interesting to see if the adf sees value in getting some for CAS/COIN. Or even as another trainer type. How old are the RAAF Pilatus fleet? Seems to be that the youngest would be nearly 20 years old ('91).

Now I think about it, why even concider a future OV-10 when the Super Tucano is a more realistic option.

 

[icelord]

With a decent cruising speed of over 500kmph it would seem to be an ideal aircraft to eyeball smugglers, threats, etc and a sizeable improvement (twice as fast, three+ times the range) over the tiger.
.

More then likely the RAN would look at UAVs for such operations, and off the LHD theres a lot more options in terms of speed and Endurance becoming availiable then a piloted light aircraft

 

[riksavage]

More then likely the RAN would look at UAVs for such operations, and off the LHD theres a lot more options in terms of speed and Endurance becoming availiable then a piloted light aircraft

Yes but Super Tucano's are available and easy to configure, there's no comparable (cost plus capability) UAV that can carry the same range of weapons that a COIN equipped ST can carry. Most fixed wing pilots have to train on a prop airframe before transitioning to fast jet trainer. You could funnel Super Tucano pilots through the same system very cheaply. The LHD's would not require any conversion, plus I'm sure rotary wing mechanics could work on Tucano airframes just as easily. UCAV's such as Reaper require a ground station and none have yet flown from a carrier at sea? For areas such as A-Stan the Super Tucano offers a very cheap CAS resource, which costs a fraction of what fast jets do in theatre (pilot training, fuel, maintenance etc.). Plus with the wings folded and prop removed you could fit 2-3 in a C17 for rapid deployment.

I'm sure SASR & Cdo would love to know they have a couple of Super Tucano's flying above loaded with hydra, 500lb bombs or a pod mounted 25mm cannon waiting to pounce like a modern day version of the WWII Tempest / Typhoon. You could fit ECM, chaff and build in a armoured bucket for the pilot and navigator.

Unfortuantely I think there's a degree of snobbery - RAAF pilots might see cheap prop aircraft as a regression, hence I would make them army assets flown by experienced NCO's who know from personal experience what the grunts on the ground want in the way of support.

Pure coincidence but.......................

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article6997720.ece

 

[Aussie Digger]

Well, on a sales pitch anyway.

Seems like a wasted effort to me. It's already shortlisted for the replacement ASW helo project, it's not like ADF need convincing to consider the aircraft...

Can no lessons be learnt from the big show and tell Caesar artillery effort a few years back? A fat lot of good that did the Caesar artillery bid...

 

[Todjaeger]

Seems like a wasted effort to me. It's already shortlisted for the replacement ASW helo project, it's not like ADF need convincing to consider the aircraft...

Can no lessons be learnt from the big show and tell Caesar artillery effort a few years back? A fat lot of good that did the Caesar artillery bid...

I agree. I tend to think the most important determining factors for the RAN Future Naval Helicopter would be the projected IOC/FOC dates, and then capabilities and cost. It would be interesting to find out what the order of importance the RAN and/or Government places upon those factors.

IIRC the ASPI released a paper a few months ago that argued for a delay in selecting the replacement helicopter which had just been announced was needed as an item of 'urgency'. In essence, the article suggested that by waiting, it would give the NFH-90 more time to mature as a design and therefore have a lower programme risk, which in turn would make it an even more likely candidate vs. the MH-60R 'Romeo'. Again IIRC, the ASPI seemed to suggest that even with the accelerated selection process delayed somewhat for the NFH-90 to mature, the first examples (of the NFH-90 in RAN service) would not start to enter service until 2015.

Can anyone comment on when the RAN feels the replacement helicopters need to start entering RAN service, as I have a feeling the in-service date could be the deal maker/breaker.

-Cheers

 

[Marc 1]

can be flown by NCO's

Odd comment - do you mean, more expendable or simpler to fly - doesn't require the 'brainpower' of an officer?

I have served with very many NCO's that have been far smarter than the officer's they were serving under - and many that I'd consider to be less 'expendable' than most officers too!

 

[Marc 1]

Yes but Super Tucano's are available and easy to configure, there's no comparable (cost plus capability) UAV that can carry the same range of weapons that a COIN equipped ST can carry. Most fixed wing pilots have to train on a prop airframe before transitioning to fast jet trainer. You could funnel Super Tucano pilots through the same system very cheaply. The LHD's would not require any conversion, plus I'm sure rotary wing mechanics could work on Tucano airframes just as easily. UCAV's such as Reaper require a ground station and none have yet flown from a carrier at sea? For areas such as A-Stan the Super Tucano offers a very cheap CAS resource, which costs a fraction of what fast jets do in theatre (pilot training, fuel, maintenance etc.). Plus with the wings folded and prop removed you could fit 2-3 in a C17 for rapid deployment.

I'm sure SASR & Cdo would love to know they have a couple of Super Tucano's flying above loaded with hydra, 500lb bombs or a pod mounted 25mm cannon waiting to pounce like a modern day version of the WWII Tempest / Typhoon. You could fit ECM, chaff and build in a armoured bucket for the pilot and navigator.

Unfortuantely I think there's a degree of snobbery - RAAF pilots might see cheap prop aircraft as a regression, hence I would make them army assets flown by experienced NCO's who know from personal experience what the grunts on the ground want in the way of support.

Pure coincidence but.......................

RAF urged to cut ‘Cold War’ new jets for cheap propeller aircraft - Times Online

This discussion is looking a lot like turning the fat ships into carriers again. Why load a few (5 a likely minimum?) limited use fixed wings? The Canberra class will not have a catapault, so that would probably mean the ship would need to be steaming at some speed into a wind or creating her own wind. That kinda interferes with the egress of troops from the well deck and the operations of the chopper airlift group taking diggers and supplies to the beachhead doesn't it? Then again with having to provide the additional space for the Tucano's maybe there won't be space for many troops or vehicles in the first place. - Back to the original argument... We do not want a 'half pregnant' solution.

If there is any requirement for air let it be by a proper strike aircraft that can carry precision munitions supported by tankers from somewhere with a proper runway. By the time you add a titanium tub to the Tucano to provide this protection for the pilot, the payload would be significantly reduced. Given that it is doing STOL work it would already be operating with a reduced payload. You'd probably be left with a 'warload' of the pilot firing his 9mm out the window (deja vous - WWI)

If we are going to operate a CAS aircraft in a relatively low threat environment that a super tucano could handle why not consider an AC-130J or three? Great loiter time, excellent range - existing airframe, precision weaponry and can operate above the trashfire - leaves the fatships to do their job. Have they cleared Hellfire for carriage and firing on AC130's?

 

[LancasterBomber]

The Australian Navy submarine, HMAS Farncomb, is in maintenance following the electrical failure of one of its three main generators last week.

The problem stems from the way some of the generators were manufactured. At no time was the crew at risk but investigations are continuing in order to determine the impact this deficiency might have on the remainder of the submarine fleet.

"I am very disappointed by this development," Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Russell Crane, said.

"Navy will continue to work with the Defence Materiel Organisation, industry and ASC Pty Ltd (formerly the Australian Submarine Corporation) to determine the extent of the issue and rectify this problem.

"We are working hard to ensure this fault is rectified as soon as possible. The Australian public, the Defence organisation and our Navy family expect nothing less."

HMAS Farncomb will remain alongside until this issue has been rectified.

"Australia's maritime defences remain strong and we continue to have a credible submarine capability available. The multi-layered approach to our defence enables us to minimise the impact of contingencies such as this," Vice Admiral Crane said.

I cant find it but I am sure I read a RAN press article by Farncomb CO about a recent operational stretch where they returned home 3 months overdue having to bunker down in Adelaide for 9 weeks of unscheduled repairs (sending most of the crew home on annual leave). Must of been late last year. No idea if its a related issue.

I havent seen a 'bash the collins class' article in mainstream press for a few months now. We are about due....

.....You'd probably be left with a 'warload' of the pilot firing his 9mm out the window (deja vous - WWI).....

nfloorl: Gold.

 

[t68]

This discussion is looking a lot like turning the fat ships into carriers again. Why load a few (5 a likely minimum?) limited use fixed wings? The Canberra class will not have a catapault, so that would probably mean the ship would need to be steaming at some speed into a wind or creating her own wind. That kinda interferes with the egress of troops from the well deck and the operations of the chopper airlift group taking diggers and supplies to the beachhead doesn't it? Then again with having to provide the additional space for the Tucano's maybe there won't be space for many troops or vehicles in the first place. - Back to the original argument... We do not want a 'half pregnant' solution.

If there is any requirement for air let it be by a proper strike aircraft that can carry precision munitions supported by tankers from somewhere with a proper runway. By the time you add a titanium tub to the Tucano to provide this protection for the pilot, the payload would be significantly reduced. Given that it is doing STOL work it would already be operating with a reduced payload. You'd probably be left with a 'warload' of the pilot firing his 9mm out the window (deja vous - WWI)

If we are going to operate a CAS aircraft in a relatively low threat environment that a super tucano could handle why not consider an AC-130J or three? Great loiter time, excellent range - existing airframe, precision weaponry and can operate above the trashfire - leaves the fatships to do their job. Have they cleared Hellfire for carriage and firing on AC130's?

From reading the article from the Navy magazine, the idea of OV10-x is a cheaper support aircraft that will indeed be used in a CAS support role, I think it is prudent to have available an aircraft that could be called upon for when the Canberra’s are operating in a more higher intensity role.

I believe that is why they are advocating OV10-X it takes no more room than a MRH-90/tiger. the LHD will always be moving and not present an easy stationary target and will launch off the ski jump removing the need for a catapult, it can loiter longer be in the air before the troop helicopters’ launch and be available from the word go leaving Tiger for it‘s intended role of a Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter.

StingrayOZ idea of an anti piracy/drug running/coast watch aircraft is a step in the right direction it can fulfill a multi-role for when not needed aboard an LHD and get more use of the aircraft.

If Boeing do decide to modernize the aircraft and can do the same work as a Tiger with its electronic up grade’s and have a longer time in the air at a cheaper rate imo believe it is worth considering.

When the Canberra’s are operating together at the same time with a battalion aboard, would the battalion be spread out on both LHD’S or on the one ship leaving one LHD dedicated to have a support role with store’s and aircraft such as OV-10X/tiger’s and chooks if needed?

How exactly would it deploy if confronted with another East Timor type situation and far enough away from our land based aircraft act in defence of the fleet and troop’s in the field?

 

[riksavage]

Odd comment - do you mean, more expendable or simpler to fly - doesn't require the 'brainpower' of an officer?

I have served with very many NCO's that have been far smarter than the officer's they were serving under - and many that I'd consider to be less 'expendable' than most officers too!

The UK army aircorp has a mix of commisioned and NCO pilot's. My reference to NCO pilots draws on the fact that many aircorp helo pilots come from Infantry units, so they have a stong operational knowledge of what it's actually like being in a fire-fight on the ground. One of the Apache pilot's who carried the two marines on his weapons pylons to rescue the missing guy in A-Stan was a former Para NCO.

After WWII the UK only switched to an all commisioned rank structure for pilot / navigator roles because the RAF felt only the most academic of personnel could be trusted to drop A-Bombs. Today this sounds snobbish, but it was driven internally at the time by the RAF head-shed. Plus with the arrival of the jet era the theoretical knowledge required to understand the mechanics of supersonic flight tended to favour graduates.

On a separate note Janes are reporting the following:

"The UK and Australia have opened a government-to-government dialogue to explore the potential for co-operation on their respective frigate and minor war vessel replacement programmes.

Information exchanges are expected to continue around the Pacific 2010 conference and exhibition, running in Sydney from 27-29 January. The UK has also engaged with its counterparts in New Zealand with regard to its ANZAC frigate replacement plans.

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is expected to announce in February the start of a four-year assessment phase for the Future Surface Combatant (FSC) C1 variant.

Under a separate funding line, concept phase activities for a Future Mine Countermeasures/Hydrographic/Patrol Vessel (FMHPV), previously identified as FSC C3, are expected to commence in April 2010."

Personally I hope this moves forward, with BAE expanding in Aus, plus recent work on the Daring class, Astute and QE, I'm sure a few lessons learnt can be passed on to aviod any future screw-ups. I also read that the Collins class is now down to one active boat for training and deployment due to mechanical issues - not confirmed though?

 

[Sea Toby]

From reading the article from the Navy magazine, the idea of OV10-x is a cheaper support aircraft that will indeed be used in a CAS support role, I think it is prudent to have available an aircraft that could be called upon for when the Canberra’s are operating in a more higher intensity role.

I believe that is why they are advocating OV10-X it takes no more room than a MRH-90/tiger. the LHD will always be moving and not present an easy stationary target and will launch off the ski jump removing the need for a catapult, it can loiter longer be in the air before the troop helicopters’ launch and be available from the word go leaving Tiger for it‘s intended role of a Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter.

StingrayOZ idea of an anti piracy/drug running/coast watch aircraft is a step in the right direction it can fulfill a multi-role for when not needed aboard an LHD and get more use of the aircraft.

If Boeing do decide to modernize the aircraft and can do the same work as a Tiger with its electronic up grade’s and have a longer time in the air at a cheaper rate imo believe it is worth considering.

When the Canberra’s are operating together at the same time with a battalion aboard, would the battalion be spread out on both LHD’S or on the one ship leaving one LHD dedicated to have a support role with store’s and aircraft such as OV-10X/tiger’s and chooks if needed?

How exactly would it deploy if confronted with another East Timor type situation and far enough away from our land based aircraft act in defence of the fleet and troop’s in the field?

You almost had me persuaded until you last sentence. Prop aircraft being used as a fighter to defend the fleet? LOL! Again, it takes more than five aircraft to provide a CAP over the fleet 24 hours, 7 days a week.... Many more to do the job sufficiently....

Australia plans to deploy their LHDs under either RAAF or allied air force superiority...

Frankly, the Tiger helicopters will provide adequate CAS in the South Pacific. If more CAS is needed, the RAAF is very capable of doing so....

 

[t68]

You almost had me persuaded until you last sentence. Prop aircraft being used as a fighter to defend the fleet? LOL! Again, it takes more than five aircraft to provide a CAP over the fleet 24 hours, 7 days a week.... Many more to do the job sufficiently....

Australia plans to deploy their LHDs under either RAAF or allied air force superiority...

Frankly, the Tiger helicopters will provide adequate CAS in the South Pacific. If more CAS is needed, the RAAF is very capable of doing so....

G-day Sea Toby

I not expecting it to defend the fleet, it was directed as an open question for how the fleet will defend itself and troops on the ground when operating in a higher intensity role far enough away from our land based aircraft, as in East Timor we were the lead nation and a US Marine MEU might not always be around when we need it and the rational for acquiring the LHD in the first place with our shortcoming in1999.

Navy league is of the opinion of having a small amount of F35B aboard which clearly government and defence professionals on this site and other’s think it is not necessary luxury. It is offering an alternative to an expensive F35B in the CAS role.

I myself tend to agree with the argument Navy league has brought forward believing prudent to have such systems in place to defended itself when further away from land based support. We might only have the two deck’s and has been successfully debated why the LHD not be turned into mini carrier’s. But when both are operating together with a battalion on board one of the LHD the other is a pure support deck and able to carry the extra types of aircraft.

Even with the small amount of F35B were to be purchased for the LHD the amount of aircraft aboard will be purely defensive in nature only with not enough aircraft aboard to mount a credible offence capability bearing in mind it will also have extra Tiger or Chooks aboard to deliver thing like arty/store’s or whatever is need ashore in a hurry.

This is where it becomes necessary to expedite to fourth coming decision on additional sealift capability for the RAN.

 

[Marc 1]

From reading the article from the Navy magazine, the idea of OV10-x is a cheaper support aircraft that will indeed be used in a CAS support role, I think it is prudent to have available an aircraft that could be called upon for when the Canberra’s are operating in a more higher intensity role.

Higher intensity than a Tiger can handle with its nose mounted 30mm cannon 2.75inch rocket and Hellfire missiles? And you want to put an OV10 up into that? If it is more than a Tiger can handle, I'd say we'd definately be needing fast jets (RAAF) support.

I believe that is why they are advocating OV10-X it takes no more room than a MRH-90/tiger. the LHD will always be moving and not present an easy stationary target and will launch off the ski jump removing the need for a catapult, it can loiter longer be in the air before the troop helicopters’ launch and be available from the word go leaving Tiger for it‘s intended role of a Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter.

I haven't seen it mentioned but the OV-10 didn't have folding wings. So we are talking an aircraft L12.67 x W12.12 x H4.62m, whereas the NH-90 needs L16.13m x H5.23m, however, there was no width for blades folded so I'd guess it would be around W4m. That is significantly less space below decks (3 x NH-90 parked in a space a little longer than one OV10). As to whether they are usable from a carrier wiki lists this on the OV-10 page:

The OV-10 can perform short takeoffs and landings on aircraft carriers and large deck amphibious assault ships[4] without using catapults or arresting wires, although for safety and clearance reasons the latter is most often not permitted.

That doesn't sound too promising to me. And the Canberra class is going to be 26m shorter than the Wasp class Amphibs or 19m shorter than the Tarawa's. If they were operating these aircraft routinely off the IwoJima class vessels with a length 41m shorter than the Canberra I'd be surprised. But I will grant the fact that the Canberra's will have a ski jump.

PS - that role as Armed Recon Helicopter was a smokescreen so Army could say to the pollies "Look we need to replace these aging Kiowas that are used for recon... can the replacements have a few guns for self protection too?" If that were the case we would have bought the D model Kiowa's the yanks use. What they didn't say to the pollies because the pollies would have been suspicious was: "Hey, lets buy a capability we've always wanted but never had - a proper attack helo."

StingrayOZ idea of an anti piracy/drug running/coast watch aircraft is a step in the right direction it can fulfill a multi-role for when not needed aboard an LHD and get more use of the aircraft.

The range listed on wiki is a long way short of our existing coastwatch aircraft at around 1000km, although this would probably be the 'loaded for bear' range and would not be representative of a maritime patrol range. Either way, if we have a need for more coastwatch aircraft we should buy more.

If Boeing do decide to modernize the aircraft and can do the same work as a Tiger with its electronic up grade’s and have a longer time in the air at a cheaper rate imo believe it is worth considering.

Bit late - we already have the Tigers. Adding another airframe with all the parts/training and so forth would ensure the extra airframe would be no cheaper to operate than the more expensive Tigers.

When the Canberra’s are operating together at the same time with a battalion aboard, would the battalion be spread out on both LHD’S or on the one ship leaving one LHD dedicated to have a support role with store’s and aircraft such as OV-10X/tiger’s and chooks if needed?

We possibly wouldn't be deploying both Canberras at the same time. What If one was in refit?

How exactly would it deploy if confronted with another East Timor type situation and far enough away from our land based aircraft act in defence of the fleet and troop’s in the field?

In short, we wouldn't, or at least wouldn't by ourselves. The only reason why Timor went ahead is that we could support it with RAAF assets from Tindal, Darwin and Curtain.