Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[RAAF-35]

Before going off half-cocked, consider for a start, that you are wrong. RAAF Amberley is now Defence's biggest airbase. Secondly, why don't you pause for a bit, take a deep breath and then actually have a look at where RAAF has it's bases?

Here is a nice pretty map, showing all of RAAF's active bases.

To which you can add 3x "bare bases" capable of being activated in a time of war. These include RAAF Scherger, located at Weipa in far Northern Queensland, RAAF Learmonth at Exmouth in North Western Australia and RAAF Base Curtin at Derby North Western Australia. All of which are positioned and designed, to accomodate DEPLOYED RAAF and ADF elements, exactly where you think they should be... In this case, ADF and Government happen to as well.

Here is the full list of operational and bare RAAF bases within AustrRalia, plus RAAF Butterworth, which is still maintained with a RAAF detachment.


RAAF can operate tactical fighter elements from the overwhelming majority of these bases and does so on a regular basis. RAAF regularly deploys forces and tests it's capability to do so, constantly.

The REASON that RAAF Williamtown is the primary home of RAAF's fighter force is it is the traditional home of RAAF fighter force. It was once considered important to maintain some strategic depth in defence, it might just be the case that, that is STILL important today... Wouldn't it be a great idea to base our entire Air Force in the north of the Country, if such a surprise attack occurred?

Don't you think therefore, that perhaps it is not an entirely unreasonable proposition to situate the bulk of our air combat capability in an area that actually makes use of our geographic reality and denies same to a potential enemy? It is a lot easier to fly fighter elements to a deployment base than it is to reconstitute a destroyed air force...

On top of this, defence industry capability to support our fighters is based there. RAAF's Operational Conversion Unit is based there and the base is big enough and modern enough to accomodate the fighter squadrons, OCU, maintenance and training facilities, plus it has good access to on-shore and off-shore training areas.



The "bombed out base" will be repaired I imagine, with aircraft dispersed before it is struck. Force protection measures are considered before operations are conducted and implemented whilst operations are being conducted. There are no guarantees in war. What if the enemy sinks our pseudo-carrier one might ask? What fire support will the digs have then? Investing in F-35B would most likely soak up all the funding for a cruise missile capability and probably all the other fire support projects ADF wants as well. The list of potential "whatifs" is endless.

Exactly what "fixed wing carrier ops" have we replaced, btw? Australia hasn't run a fixed wing carrier capability since 1982... Funnily enough, we've survived nearly 30 years now without a carrier. The world hasn't ended in that time and we've run plenty of amphibious operations in Asia and the South Pacific...

As already outlined above, you've forgotten entirely that RAAF has a well practiced and sound deployment capability with it's fighter force. Defence of Australia operations would NOT be run from fighters based at Williamtown, so some of the more ridiculous arguments in that little rant do not even apply.

I think you are a little bit too concerned about "CAS" too. The ADF is becoming increasingly joint. The digs on the ground couldn't care less where a bomb comes from, so long as it suppresses or destroys the enemy when they need it. JTAC's control all in-direct fires in CAS situations nowadays and don't overly care either what delivers the effect, so long as it IS delivered and achieves the mission.

Under current plans, Navy is going to have 127mm guns with long ranged land attack capabilities. It is also going to have a long ranged cruise missile capability. Whether this is Tomahawk or some other missile system remains to be seen.

RAN and Army are also likely to have an attack helicopter capability present in theatre in any amphibious operations (Navy has a requirement for a short ranged air to surface missile capability from it's new maritime warfare helos) and the digs obviously will have the full range of direct and in-direct fires that Army will be able to deploy on any of these operations.

That is a far better fire support capability than ADF can generate now and it is a far better fire support capability than ADF had when we DID run a carrier. Hoping for more is unrealistic, especially when the boats we are buying aren't suited to it.




The problem with your argument is that you do not consider reality. Heard about the problems with manning the submarine squadron, have you? Well they are based in Perth. Imagine if it were based on the North West Coast of Australia. Who exactly would want to join then? The majority of our major capabilities are based near our population and industrial bases, for what should be obvious reasons. If you can't grasp that, then perhaps doing a little critical thinking, couldn't hurt.

Your telling me stuff that I already know. If you think that "bare bone" bases will be able to handle a war, then good on you. Last time I checked a dirt airstrip couldnt do much. And your still not looking at the fact of the huge hole in Australias defence which is if we were to come under attack, it would be from the north, and "bare bone" bases wont be able to provide a fighter squadron with what they need to fly day in, day out. If you really think that there is no need to either eshtablish a proper air base in the north west of the country, or aquire a fleet air arm then your the one that needs to do a little "critical thinking" mate.

 

[lopez]

Your telling me stuff that I already know. If you think that "bare bone" bases will be able to handle a war, then good on you. Last time I checked a dirt airstrip couldnt do much. And your still not looking at the fact of the huge hole in Australias defence which is if we were to come under attack, it would be from the north, and "bare bone" bases wont be able to provide a fighter squadron with what they need to fly day in, day out. If you really think that there is no need to either eshtablish a proper air base in the north west of the country, or aquire a fleet air arm then your the one that needs to do a little "critical thinking" mate.

have you even seen these "dirt airstips"?

and "bare bone" bases wont be able to provide a fighter squadron with what they need to fly day in, day out.

why not????? it is what they are made for....


raaf bare base curtin, complete with bunkers....


take a look!!!!

 

[RAAF-35]

have you even seen these "dirt airstips"?

why not it is what they are made for....

If you think that that could provide what a fighter squadron would need during a war, good for you.

 

[lopez]

well seeing as you know better than the entire australian defence establishment, why dont you tell us what australia needs then...

the thing is, if such an attack was to be made on australia, we would know it is coming so we can bring the things we do need to these bases to make them operational....

another benifet (as previosly stated by AD) of these bases is if we did completey fail at percieving a threat, we dont loose our entire airforce...

i also question the usefullness of a carrier fleet and fixed wing air arm if we are completely unaware of the attck, a requirement of your supposed situation to atleast make it plasuible...


maybe you should compare the bare base to a [ame="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=RAAF+Base+Amberley,+Amberley,+Queensland,+Australia&sll=-17.167034,123.682709&sspn=0.394945,0.558929&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Amberley+Terminal,+Australia&ll=-27.636471,152.70833&spn=0.022887,0.034933&t=h&z=14"]raaf amberly....[/ame]

 

[RAAF-35]

well seeing as you know better than the entire australian defence establishment, why dont you tell us what australia needs then...

the thing is, if such an attack was to be made on australia, we would know it is coming so we can bring the things we do need to these bases to make them operational....

another benifet (as previosly stated by AD) of these bases is if we did completey fail at percieving a threat, we dont loose our entire airforce...

i also question the usefullness of a carrier fleet and fixed wing air arm if we are completely unaware of the attck, a requirement of your supposed situation to atleast make it plasuible...


maybe you should compare the bare base to a

Admin: text deleted please read the forum rules. Play Nice

..............to see that one of these bare bases simply would not provide the needs of an operational fighter force.And these "bunkers" you talk of. Last time I checked one of these cant offer much protection.

 

[RAAF-35]

well seeing as you know better than the entire australian defence establishment, why dont you tell us what australia needs then...

the thing is, if such an attack was to be made on australia, we would know it is coming so we can bring the things we do need to these bases to make them operational....

another benifet (as previosly stated by AD) of these bases is if we did completey fail at percieving a threat, we dont loose our entire airforce...

i also question the usefullness of a carrier fleet and fixed wing air arm if we are completely unaware of the attck, a requirement of your supposed situation to atleast make it plasuible...


maybe you should compare the bare base to a raaf amberly....

I dont think one of these will offer much protection for a plane.

 

[gf0012-aust]

A reminder to all and sundry.

Please read the forum rules about engagement expectations in here.

Play Nice.​

 

[RAAF-35]

You can see that this is by no means a bunker.

 

[Bonza]

You can see that this is by no means a bunker.

A piece of advice: please don't post one liners, as per the forum rules, and please remember this thread is about the RAN, not about the RAAF, about aircraft shelters, or about basing in the far reaches of Australia. So kindly steer yourself back on topic or take the debate to one of the other forums.

 

[StevoJH]

Your telling me stuff that I already know. If you think that "bare bone" bases will be able to handle a war, then good on you. Last time I checked a dirt airstrip couldnt do much. And your still not looking at the fact of the huge hole in Australias defence which is if we were to come under attack, it would be from the north, and "bare bone" bases wont be able to provide a fighter squadron with what they need to fly day in, day out. If you really think that there is no need to either eshtablish a proper air base in the north west of the country, or aquire a fleet air arm then your the one that needs to do a little "critical thinking" mate.

Sorry about the OT, but I thought this needed a response.

Dirt strip? I'll just post some screenshots of those dirt strips I took off Google Maps....

Please, please at least check your data before posting random comments. On top of these rather complete bases, there is also the rather massive RAAF Tindal in Darwin.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Your telling me stuff that I already know. If you think that "bare bone" bases will be able to handle a war, then good on you. Last time I checked a dirt airstrip couldnt do much.

They aren't dirt strips. They are airbases, minus a full time squadron. If you can imagine all the operational units moving out of Williamtown, with their equipment, platforms etc and leaving the buildings and facilities behind, you will get an idea of what these bare bases are...

And your still not looking at the fact of the huge hole in Australias defence which is if we were to come under attack, it would be from the north, and "bare bone" bases wont be able to provide a fighter squadron with what they need to fly day in, day out.

Yes they can and I quote:

As front-line bases, bare bases consist of essential airfield support infrastructure – such as runways, taxiways, parking areas and maintenance facilities – which are used when the base becomes operational. Some equipment and supplies are stored at the bare bases for use when the base is activated, however, the bases house only a few caretaker personnel on a regular basis.


A bare base is usually activated as part of a major Australian Defence Force exercise such as Exercises Pitch Black or Kakadu. Activating a bare base means that the base is brought to a fully operational state. To do this, Combat Support Group supplies the support required to set up the base and sustain the flying operations of the aircraft participating in the exercise. The activation of a bare base practices vital deployment procedures and sustainment of support requirements for the flying operations.

Courtesy of the RAAF website. If you need further help with such advanced researches, this might be of assistance:



Let me google that for you

If you really think that there is no need to either eshtablish a proper air base in the north west of the country, or aquire a fleet air arm then your the one that needs to do a little "critical thinking" mate.

We have an airbase in the North of the Country. It's called RAAF Tindal and it is our primary air defence infrastructure in this Country.

A fleet air arm is going to be of little overall use in the defence of our Country. It would have to be home-ported at Fleet base East or West and therefore of little better geographic location in a time of need than any deployed fighter squadron would be...

 

[Waylander]

Isn't it a bit weird to justify a F-35B purchase by stating that it will help defending Australia?

I mean in order to threaten Australia one would need to build a fleet that rivals the US Navy. Does anybody really thinks that a task force which has the ability gain, hold, support and enlarge a bridgehead in Australia will do anything but laugh at a handfull of F-35Bs operating from a ship which can barely support constant fixed wing high intensity operations?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I mean in order to threaten Australia one would need to build a fleet that rivals the US Navy. Does anybody really thinks that a task force which has the ability gain, hold, support and enlarge a bridgehead in Australia will do anything but laugh at a handfull of F-35Bs operating from a ship which can barely support constant fixed wing high intensity operations?

Thank God someone else gets it...

 

[Marc 1]

Thank God someone else gets it...

GF, clearly you don't understand....

[Fanboi mode] My F35's are the new australianised version improved by DSTO and fitted with 12 x GAU 8's, 15 x Tomahawks, 99 x unguided rocket pods, Hellfire, AMRAAM, Sidewinders, Guided bombs, oh and a Scud missile - 'cos I heard they were prety grate!

They are going to kill any invasion force OUTRITE! And it won't matter that the fatships are based in Perth or Sydney, as they will be fitted with hydrofoils and be able to top 250knots.....[/fanboi mode]

No, others have gotten it ages ago - We've just been sitting back with a bucket of popcorn watching to see who launches an exocet into RAAF35's arguments... Keep going - its quite entertaining. Hey, maybe we can incorporate the idea of buying an Iowa class for NGS to support the fatships and their F35B's... Now that would be ACE!

 

[StevoJH]

GF, clearly you don't understand....

[Fanboi mode] My F35's are the new australianised version improved by DSTO and fitted with 12 x GAU 8's, 15 x Tomahawks, 99 x unguided rocket pods, Hellfire, AMRAAM, Sidewinders, Guided bombs, oh and a Scud missile - 'cos I heard they were prety grate!

They are going to kill any invasion force OUTRITE! And it won't matter that the fatships are based in Perth or Sydney, as they will be fitted with hydrofoils and be able to top 250knots.....[/fanboi mode]

No, others have gotten it ages ago - We've just been sitting back with a bucket of popcorn watching to see who launches an exocet into RAAF35's arguments... Keep going - its quite entertaining. Hey, maybe we can incorporate the idea of buying an Iowa class for NGS to support the fatships and their F35B's... Now that would be ACE!

Iowa? Nah, lets build a 200,000t ship with a carriers flight deck and the armament of a battleship!

I think we need to give out a bunch of links from the previous 3 dozen times this was discussed and force people to read them.....

 

[agc33e]

1. I'm sure you will agree that our current force does not afford us any "on-board" close air support capability? Why therefore would we automatically be seeking to make the enormous jump between our present capability and a capability similar to the USMC? The difference is literally (or should that be littorally?) enormous.

They are going to have the mrh60r helos, probably, with 8 hellfires each, are tigers going to be much better than that?, the problem is that a couple of rebels with a grenade launcher can shot down the helo. Any helo is more vulnerable than any f35b.

2. These ships are designed to support helicopter operations, NOT fixed wing operations. The Spanish intend to use them as a training platform only, to keep their pilots current, when their real carrier is undergoing maintenance. It is not designed for use as an operational carrier.

It is designed for use as an operational light carrier whenever you want, the spanish will make exercises or real actions if needed with it, inside its capabilities.

3. There are other ways of providing air support and long ranged precision fires, than taking aircraft on ships. We have allies, who maintain air bases for instance. We are buying air refuelling capabilities and we will be providing our Navy with long range surface to air and surface to surface weapon systems and RAAF with long ranged air to surface weapons.

It is cheaper to use f35b as close air support for amphib or deployment, that to refuell in air an f35a. And if the distance from australian air base is very big it will be difficult the coordination, time to reach, time to spend, refuel the refuellers, etc.

4. Where exactly do you imagine that Australia would NEED fighters on ships to help fight our way into a Country and yet the 6-8 F-35B's they could actually support at best, (even then at a significant detriment to the amphibious capability of these ships) would actually be sufficient to provide this close air support and not themselves a liability?

We dont have to pay attention only to our neighboors and see if we get on well with them or not, we have to grow in knowledge and capabilities as a principle. For me its normal not to put f35b, as it is to put it.

Cheers.

 

[agc33e]

Iowa? Nah, lets build a 200,000t ship with a carriers flight deck and the armament of a battleship!

I think we need to give out a bunch of links from the previous 3 dozen times this was discussed and force people to read them.....

For me this is a playground for everyone, there was a discussion somewhere in the forum before, ok, but you had your chance to comment on it, now people are arriving to those topics and comment and question like you or me did, they/we can give rethought opinions, new people might express different opinions or experience.
If anyone is not interested in the topic can scroll, please, let space for topics that you have seen already and others not, this should be a forum of the ran, that is, what the ran is and what could be for anyone.

 

[AegisFC]

I'd like to remind everyone to remain on topic and not go discussing anything that has nothing to do with the RAN or any near future equipment it may acquire.
F-35B at this time is not being acquired by Australia and it isn't likely it will ever be acquired. F-35B in RAN service is a dead horse, lets move on.

 

[Sea Toby]

You can see that this is by no means a bunker.

But they do provide a shell for a shell game... A fighter bombing them with a limited number of bombs don't know which shelter is hiding a fighter or not... Doesn't matter anyway, since I don't think any enemy fighter will be able to get so close as to bomb the shelters...

A LHD is a slow moving ship, its not a fast moving light carrier... There is only one shelter on a light carrier, its the hangar below the flight deck...

I trust the RAF much more with designing air bases than you... I am not sure you know anything about an air force's operations... Your comments are at best naive...

I repeat, the former carrier Australia recently has missed the most is the Sydney with its generous sealift capability, not the Melbourne and its small number of fighters... Something Australia will not only fix once, but twice...

 

[Todjaeger]

For me this is a playground for everyone, there was a discussion somewhere in the forum before, ok, but you had your chance to comment on it, now people are arriving to those topics and comment and question like you or me did, they/we can give rethought opinions, new people might express different opinions or experience.
If anyone is not interested in the topic can scroll, please, let space for topics that you have seen already and others not, this should be a forum of the ran, that is, what the ran is and what could be for anyone.

It gets rather tiresome to keep rehashing the same old ideas, whether the idea comes from someone new or not, many of the ideas are the same. What makes it even more frusterating at times is that many of the ideas of suggestions have little or no basis in reality, particularly the deeper one looks at some of the ideas.

Take the idea of F-35B Lightning II's being deployed from the/a Canberra-class LHD (once they enter service...), please note, I DO NOT wish to restart discussion of this idea, as this horse has already been beaten to death. Rather, I want to "burn the corpse" of the idea.

Just looking at the very surface of the idea, it seems like a good one. Embarked F-35B's could be used on CAP, CAS, anti-ship and/or strike taskings. Looking a little more deeply at it though, one (can) rapidly begins to realise that it is not viable. For instance, only perhaps 6-8 could realistically be operated from a Canberra and there would be limitations on fuel and munitions for the F-35B's due to the vessel design and safety needs. Looking further, one sees that to operate the F-35B from a Canberra, it would also have a significantly negative impact on sealift operations which is the primary role for the class in the first place. If one were to attempt to argue forgoing sealift ops from one of the Canberras, that would place further limitations on the ADF's lift capability since that would leave only one LHD, which due to training and maintenance work would not always be available operationally. In short, attempting to give the RAN a sort-of pocket carrier would mean that half the time (perhaps more) the ADF would find itself without a real sealift capability and also half the time or more it would not have the benefit of the "pocket carrier" either.

This does not even take into consideration the acquisition, maintenance and training costs for the F-35B detachment(s) and that any such costs beyond what is anticipated for the RAAF F-35A's would come at the expense of other equipment and/or capabilities.

What many people always seem to forget, is that defence budgets are not bottomless, at some point decisions are made to have Capability A instead of Capability B simply because having both is not an available choice. For Australia, having a good sealift capability was felt to be more important than resuming fixed-wing ops at sea. In fact, a number of us here would in some ways prefer that it be three Canberra-class LHDs instead of just two and the third, smaller lift vessel which might be something like a LPD.

-Cheers