I suppose it will come down to how long the boys have been away from their wives and girl friends as to how cute the pirates appear to them. If they have Pioneers with them there would be no doubt of the outcome.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
You cant get more
fftopic than this guys:hitwallBut they can float... Well if there is no spall armour fitted.
To get this back on topic. With the world's most tame beach used by the ADF for amphib training (Cowley) you could probably motor ASLAVs down the steel beach in the LHDs (or Choules) and boat them ashore under their own power. Would be nice to see.
This vid shows Typhoon at work. A is for Accuracy.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVaXlv-6Vko"]Singapore Police Coast Guard PCG 25mm Typhoon Gun live firing - YouTube[/nomedia]
You're right, let's go back to talking about flags...
:Hey, they still float with spall liners. With about one inch of freeboard...
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Well....if you really want us too.....You're right, let's go back to talking about flags...
So, anyway, if the ASLAV's *do* float with all their kit fitted....maybe the navy should take them over.....2Cav can have their horses back.....
donuteater
New Member
we need close air support in the form of a jet
Why aren't we getting f-35B's. For an invasion 2 tiger's and an ANZAC class frigate's main gun isn't enough. What if our forces get out of range of the frigates main gun. We need close air support in the form of a jet. I admit that I hate the JSF project because the jet's have a bad payload and it costs a lot to purchase them. But we give 1 billion dollars in aid each year to Indonesia so don't say we can't afford them. If an f-35B "costs too much" then get AV-8B+ harriers, better payload, cheaper and larger combat radius. Sorry if I'm wrong but I thought that the concept of an LHD was that the landing craft land the troop's, supplies, and armoured vehicles on the beach and the aircraft provide CAS. I was talking with my friend and he said that there is no room for CAS aircraft on an LHD. But why are we going to use MRH-90's. Why use helicopters to deploy troops. If that is the case we need an aircraft carrier, not an LHD with landing craft. I think we only need about 2 MRH-90's for logistic support. Besides most army and navy helicopters can't defend themselves. The loadmasters just look out the door, make them useful and get MAG 58 light machine guns. Also 4 30mm cannons and 7 M2HB guns aren't enough to defend the ship. Harriers or F-35's can also be used in defence of the ship. I think we need Phalanx's and sea sparrow missiles. HMAS Melbourne (the aircraft carrier) had 25 bofors guns. this ship is bigger and 4 30mm cannons doesn't equal 25 bofors. I think we need 4 phalanx CIWS and 1 sea sparrow missile launcher at least. Sometimes it's like our defence force is poor. I believe that the person that made the ruling that no planes will be in the fleet air arm made a very bad decision. What if they encounter an enemy ship, 30mm cannons wont destroy it, 2 strike hawks and a few hellfire missiles wont destroy it. Harriers and Harpoons all the way.
P.S. Australia and Norway are funding a project to develop an anti- ship missile for the f-35.
Why aren't we getting f-35B's. For an invasion 2 tiger's and an ANZAC class frigate's main gun isn't enough. What if our forces get out of range of the frigates main gun. We need close air support in the form of a jet. I admit that I hate the JSF project because the jet's have a bad payload and it costs a lot to purchase them. But we give 1 billion dollars in aid each year to Indonesia so don't say we can't afford them. If an f-35B "costs too much" then get AV-8B+ harriers, better payload, cheaper and larger combat radius. Sorry if I'm wrong but I thought that the concept of an LHD was that the landing craft land the troop's, supplies, and armoured vehicles on the beach and the aircraft provide CAS. I was talking with my friend and he said that there is no room for CAS aircraft on an LHD. But why are we going to use MRH-90's. Why use helicopters to deploy troops. If that is the case we need an aircraft carrier, not an LHD with landing craft. I think we only need about 2 MRH-90's for logistic support. Besides most army and navy helicopters can't defend themselves. The loadmasters just look out the door, make them useful and get MAG 58 light machine guns. Also 4 30mm cannons and 7 M2HB guns aren't enough to defend the ship. Harriers or F-35's can also be used in defence of the ship. I think we need Phalanx's and sea sparrow missiles. HMAS Melbourne (the aircraft carrier) had 25 bofors guns. this ship is bigger and 4 30mm cannons doesn't equal 25 bofors. I think we need 4 phalanx CIWS and 1 sea sparrow missile launcher at least. Sometimes it's like our defence force is poor. I believe that the person that made the ruling that no planes will be in the fleet air arm made a very bad decision. What if they encounter an enemy ship, 30mm cannons wont destroy it, 2 strike hawks and a few hellfire missiles wont destroy it. Harriers and Harpoons all the way.
P.S. Australia and Norway are funding a project to develop an anti- ship missile for the f-35.
donuteater
New Member
Well it can carry up to about 1000 troops,6 main battle tanks, 22 m113's, 24 lr110's,
6 lrpv's, 4 lcm-1e landing craft, 6 RHIB's, 2 chinooks,2 arh tigers and 6 mrh-90's
donuteater
New Member
Not that I don't like the Hobart class air warefare destroyers because I very much do,but I think that if you get bigger and less ships it is easier for your navy to be defeated. If I was making the decisions I would keep the Adelaide class and upgrade them. But I have one exeption, I would get a light carrier and it would be equiped with the RAAF's hornets and super hornets. I would also get harriers or f-35b's for the LHD's.
So you'd rather a numerous amount of large less capable ships? Who's going to "defeat" them? What advantages would a light carrier provide over the LHD's? Where would the massive amount of funds & manpower for a carrier & naval fixed wing fleet come from? These things don't fund or crew themselves, something else would have to give. One suggestion would be to rear previous discussions & threads.
Read previous threads on this topic, they will give you a hell of a lot of information. You probably won't get the best reception with these ideas as they've been done to death on these forums over a period of years.
Are you talking about us defending Australian territory or attacking elsewhere? There is a reason we have tankers. There is a reason there is bare bases. And there has to be an actual threat to defend against, and I'm not sure what threat it is you're talking about.
Besides there is significant use for these assets that is not some kind of invasion. Humanitarian relief has become a large part of the role of the ADF, and personally I cannot understand why you'd need CAS while a ship is on a SEA island helping people after a natural disaster. Humanitarian relief might not mean much to you, but it means a lot to the governments.
Why does Australia need a light carrier? The RAAF is very capable of providing cover defending Australia. Any opposed landing abroad won't happen until air superiority is won by air forces, whether Australian or allied. Two Tigers are quite capable of providing close air support for a battalion sized force after air superiority is won.
Amphibious ships main purpose is to move the ground troops and their equipment along with sufficient supplies to foreign soils, over a beach if necessary. A nation doesn't, well shouldn't risk a battalion of its ground forces or its expensive amphibious ships in opposed landings without winning air superiority first. Otherwise they run the risk of losing everything and everybody.
Those who desire a carrier are chasing red herrings for their agenda. The LHDs will be escorted with destroyers and frigates with scores of SAMs and SSMs. The air force will/should eliminate any air threat before the landings take place.
And if you do require a carrier, you will need more than one. At least two, if not three. Most likely before the troops in an opposed landing leave the ships' air umbrella, an airfield will be built or taken.
Furthermore, air superiority isn't required for the many humanitarian missions amphibious ships do every year.
Land based air support for naval units
nfloorl: Not that I'm cynical Toby but..........
Whilst not agreeing with the need for F 35 deployments on the LHD's and certainly not agreeingf with the need for a dedicated light CV, any force commander at sea away from the land of OZ would be crazy to believe that cover could or would be provided by our lads in light blue. Am I a pessimist?...you betcha (a pessimist is an experienced optimist)!
It was hard enough to get RAAF assets in the air on a weekend in the JB ex areas while us dummies rolled our guts out untill Monday.
Same storey when I was on exchange with the RN. hey does Libya ring a bell.
The USN has carrier forces and the USMC have aircraft for a reason...the Airforces CAN'T support naval forces more than 200 nms from bases despite what their spin says.
nfloorl: Not that I'm cynical Toby but..........Whilst not agreeing with the need for F 35 deployments on the LHD's and certainly not agreeingf with the need for a dedicated light CV, any force commander at sea away from the land of OZ would be crazy to believe that cover could or would be provided by our lads in light blue. Am I a pessimist?...you betcha (a pessimist is an experienced optimist)!
It was hard enough to get RAAF assets in the air on a weekend in the JB ex areas while us dummies rolled our guts out untill Monday.
Same storey when I was on exchange with the RN. hey does Libya ring a bell.
The USN has carrier forces and the USMC have aircraft for a reason...the Airforces CAN'T support naval forces more than 200 nms from bases despite what their spin says.
The ADF is currently programmed to spend several billion dollars to give our new destroyers and frigates some of the capability an aircraft carrier provides. Long range air defence via SM6 and anti airfield shaping strike via ship launched cruise missiles. This is clearly because land based TACAIR cannot provide these crucial capabilities with high assurance. Once the fleet is a few hundred klicks from the nearest air base it will not be able to rely on shore based TACAIR. Of course a carrier provides a better solution capability wise but the cost is in the tens of billions not hundreds of millions.
did you guys park your bowats outside the airspace AGAIN?
It was hard enough to get RAAF assets in the air on a weekend in the JB ex areas while us dummies rolled our guts out untill Monday.
Look at the situation the British had during the Falklands. With two light carriers loaded to the brim with Harriers, they barely provided CAP cover over the war zone, and there weren't many calls for close air support. And that CAP cover leaked, the Argies were able to bomb almost at will. Improper bomb fusing saved the day.
Yet, somehow some of you, the F-35B advocates, believe fewer aircraft on one LHD can do a better job? For every F-35B carried aboard a Canberra class LHD, its tons of army equipment which won't be.
Yet, somehow some of you, the F-35B advocates, believe fewer aircraft on one LHD can do a better job? For every F-35B carried aboard a Canberra class LHD, its tons of army equipment which won't be.
Loaded to the brim.................. come on how many sea harrier were carried on Invincible and Hermies. And really what CAP are you aluding to. The small number of FRS1 Harriers did quite job
- without AEW
- Over a wide area
- in dreadful conditions
I don't think most of the contributors are disagreeing with your last para.
The FI was 30 years ago and the quality of the RN sensors, the lack of effective AEW, poor tasking of embarked aircraft all contributed to the Argentinian successes. Let's not forget that the low level performance of the A4's in ground attack mode and the valour of many Argentinean pilots.
But sticking with the RAN LHD's......Let's repeat they will not be used as assault weopons in a hot war, they are primarily tasked with low level Pacific/SE Asia stabilizing operations and as disaster relief solutions.
Yes the RN definately would have done much better with no Seaharriers at all, perhaps if they had spent the money on more destroyers and frigates instead Argentina would have run out of bombs before they sank the entire task force. HMS Antelope managed to shoot down a Skyhawk with 20mm cannon so maybe the RN could have fitted extras to their other ships.
I don't deny carrier based aircraft can't do the job, but I do question whether precious space on a Canberra class LHD for a few F-35Bs will do the job. A CAP to be fool proofed has to be conducted 24/7, that is where a second carrier enters the picture.
I don't see a scenario where Australia would conduct an opposed landing without air superiority. Therefore, there isn't any compelling reasons for F-35B aircraft for the LHDs. Tiger helicopters will be more than sufficient to provide the troops close air support. Don't under estimate Tiger helicopters. There is a reason why they were bought.
I don't see a scenario where Australia would conduct an opposed landing without air superiority. Therefore, there isn't any compelling reasons for F-35B aircraft for the LHDs. Tiger helicopters will be more than sufficient to provide the troops close air support. Don't under estimate Tiger helicopters. There is a reason why they were bought.
- Status