Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Tee_Centre_10]

Interesting point on NZ looking at acquiring a carrier post WWII, I haddn't heard that before but it does make sence and would have been a better investment than the three Bellonias they operated post war.

The rationale for the RNZN cruisers was that they were to slot directly into the RAN OoB, which is why the RNZN was a cruiser/frigate force post war.

The Bellona-class were described as light cruisers but would be more accurately described as AA cruisers because of the DP nature of the 5.25in guns compared to the 6in guns of other RN light cruisers. Their role was to act as AA escorts to the RAN carrier groups, and given the RNZN didn't have to pay for them (although it could be argued that NZ did through their direct funding of the RN), they were quite the bargain. But technology and funding shortfalls overtook them and made them obsolete.

It is debatable whether a RNZN carrier could even have been viable with the NZ services cut back post-WW2.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

Could someone please tell me how many helicopters will be on the LHD's at any one time, some websites say 14 others said 32 maximum. Also the RAN is getting 24 Romeo's and somewhere it said that 8 can be on a ship at any time. We have 12 ship's that can carry them which was 14 and will be lowered to 11, and it said the romeo's will replace the S-70B-2's onboard the ANZAC class.
Doe's that mean that our AWD's will not have a helicopter for a few years and also will our LHD's have romeo's for ASW operations, lowering the number to around 6 helicopters available. Having 8 at sea means that there are about 16 chopers at Nowra, I never see sea hawks there. Anyway, why can there only be 8 romeo's at sea? I thought before I read anything that there would be 8 not at sea.

The difference is how many helicopters can operate from the LHDs and how many can be transported by them. Helicopters need to be serviced and fueled and armed if they are being operated. Helicopters that are being transported to a destination do not.

As for the Seahawks, not all of the ships are at sea at the one time. Helicopters are attached to the ships when being deployed, not on a permanent basis.

The number of Seahawks at Nowra fluctuates as well according to deployments, maintenance and upgrades. You need extra aircraft to be able to have some undergoing maintenance, and again in the future as the fleet undergoes an upgrade. Other Seahawks are required for ongoing training purposes.

Further to the number at Nowra, a number of Seahawks are based in WA at FBW supporting the Anzacs there.
Do you mean how many are based at Nowra or how many you can actually see if you peered over the fence? The ADF tends not to store aircraft outside on aprons if they can be kept in a hanger or under a shelter. There is an upside to having a modest number of aircraft.

 

[John Newman]

Could someone please tell me how many helicopters will be on the LHD's at any one time, some websites say 14 others said 32 maximum. Also the RAN is getting 24 Romeo's and somewhere it said that 8 can be on a ship at any time. We have 12 ship's that can carry them which was 14 and will be lowered to 11, and it said the romeo's will replace the S-70B-2's onboard the ANZAC class.
Doe's that mean that our AWD's will not have a helicopter for a few years and also will our LHD's have romeo's for ASW operations, lowering the number to around 6 helicopters available. Having 8 at sea means that there are about 16 chopers at Nowra, I never see sea hawks there. Anyway, why can there only be 8 romeo's at sea? I thought before I read anything that there would be 8 not at sea.

Donut, your question,14 or 32?

Have a look at this link, it shows a cutaway of an LHD:

File:Lhd cutaway.jpg - Royal Australian Navy


As you will see there are 3 main decks, (1) heavy vehicle deck / welldock, (2) light vehicle deck / hangar and (3) the flight deck.

The ships are never going to "operate" with 32, sure it could probably "transport" 32, if the aircraft were stored in the hangar and spilling into the light vehicle deck and of course carried on the flight deck too.

So a "full operational" compliment is probably around the 14 mark. Not that they will probably have anywhere near that number onboard on a regular basis.

Why would the LHD's being carrying Romeo's? Its NOT an ASW Carrier!! The escorting destroyers and frigates will do that job.

The LHD's will be carrying Army / Navy transport helicopters, eg MRH90's or Blackhawks.


Yes the plan for the 24 Romeo's is to have 8 available for shipboard operations at anyone time, there probably will be a "surge" capacity, if required, but the remaining 16 will be in mainteance or land based training.

Not all the Frigates are at see at the one time anyway, I went past Garden Island the other day to have a look at Choules and I could see 5-6 Frigates tied up alongside.

As for the AWD's, the older Seahawks will be available for operation till enough of the Romeo's are in service.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

Edited.
It is a misconception that Commercial ports in the NW can be easily accessed. Most are owned by the resource companies and they are almost always at capacity.
Let me summarise;
Exmouth - Not suitable for frigate size ship but MWV's could access the marina and store and bunker
Karratha/Port Hedland - Despite continuing redevelopments of both ports there is no spare capacity and there are always 50+ bulkers anchore off awaiting loading berths' think Newcastle and Hay Point.
Broome - No capacity for warships. The single wharf is at max utilisation with Offshore support ships.
Derby - Tidal berth with dangerous transit through King Sound.
Darwin - The defence funded RORO facility at Fort Hill Wharf has not been maintained by either defence or the Darwin Port Corp and as it was srplus to DPC's requirements it has been sold late last year. This was the same facility used by defence to load HMAS JERVIS BAY during INTERFET.

Is anyone else seeing the irony here that it is the whinging from the resources industry and the West who don't feel defended enough that has prompted the FPR, but it is the resources industry that won't give the RAN room alongside to refuel/resupply? Maybe instead of the RRT, Australia should be implementing the Resource Defence Tax.

As to the idea of resupply of airbases from the sea, I was thinking more along the lines of shortening the supply lines rather than necessarily direct supply. A big deal was made of it in the FPR, so it must be of concern to those they talked to.

In the case of Learmonth, I believe there was a wharf to off load aviation fuel and stores during WW2, and given the airfield is about 500m-1km from the coast there is an opportunity for fluids and stores to be offloaded at a wharf near the airfield, with fluids possibly piped direct to storage tanks on or adjacent to the airfield, and stores trucked directly to storage areas.
Large vessels may not be able to offload at Derby, but they could at Broome and the fuel/stores trucked from there. It still shortens the supply line. A number of smaller coastal tankers operate around Australia, and perhaps they could operate into Derby which is challenging.
I'm not certain it would even be possible to resupply Scherger by road. It is almost 1000km to Cairns via the PDR and it isn't all-weather (it closes in the wet season), in fact it is barely dry weather capable. Others may know better than myself the state of freight up the PDR, but I wouldn't imagine it being able to support the high axle loads necessary of large bulk loads.

It seems a shame that there is no room in the RAN OoB for a HMAS Stalwart type of depot/engineering support ship. Having her would mean that most ports could become a naval base for operations, and her support was of enormous benefit when deploying to foreign exercises.
What are the chances that the new AOR might have expanded heavy engineering facilities to support deployed vessels? It would seem that this would be of more value to deployed forces than command, hospital or troop accommodation. Especially when the LHDs arrive and have all these in abundance.

 

[Tasman]

Could someone please tell me how many helicopters will be on the LHD's at any one time, some websites say 14 others said 32 maximum. Also the RAN is getting 24 Romeo's and somewhere it said that 8 can be on a ship at any time. We have 12 ship's that can carry them which was 14 and will be lowered to 11, and it said the romeo's will replace the S-70B-2's onboard the ANZAC class.
Doe's that mean that our AWD's will not have a helicopter for a few years and also will our LHD's have romeo's for ASW operations, lowering the number to around 6 helicopters available. Having 8 at sea means that there are about 16 chopers at Nowra, I never see sea hawks there. Anyway, why can there only be 8 romeo's at sea? I thought before I read anything that there would be 8 not at sea.

John Newman and Tee_Centre_10 have covered your question pretty well.

The helicopter complement for an LHD deployed on an operation will be tailored to the task.

For example on a peacetime training cruise with a company of troops embarked they may deploy with with just a detachment of army MRH90s or Blackhawks (perhaps just 4 - 6 helos) but for full scale amphibious exercises with both ships available I expect the navy and army will want to test their capability. In this case we could see a full trooplift squadron plus a detachment of Chinooks and/or Tiger ARHs split between the two ships. In addition I understand that each LHD will have a dedicated navy MRH90 allocated for utility work. As was the case with the old LPAs it would be possible to embark a few Seahawks to supplement those carried by the escorts if the threat of attack by submarines or fast attack craft was considered high but this would be at the expense of some army helos. The stated requirement when the LHDs went out to tender was the ability to operate 12 medium helicopters so I think a maximum of around 14 as suggested by John is probably close to the mark. An example of helo mix split between 2 LHDs could be a along the lines of 16 army and 2 navy MRH90s, 4 Tigers and 2 Chinooks.

Tas

 

[ADMk2]

Could someone please tell me how many helicopters will be on the LHD's at any one time, some websites say 14 others said 32 maximum. Also the RAN is getting 24 Romeo's and somewhere it said that 8 can be on a ship at any time. We have 12 ship's that can carry them which was 14 and will be lowered to 11, and it said the romeo's will replace the S-70B-2's onboard the ANZAC class.
Doe's that mean that our AWD's will not have a helicopter for a few years and also will our LHD's have romeo's for ASW operations, lowering the number to around 6 helicopters available. Having 8 at sea means that there are about 16 chopers at Nowra, I never see sea hawks there. Anyway, why can there only be 8 romeo's at sea? I thought before I read anything that there would be 8 not at sea.

You might find it surprising that not all of Navy's ships are at sea at the same time, not all need an ASW helicopter all the time and the requirement for RAN's ASW helicopter fleet is to be capable of generating 8x ASW helicopter flights, is the sustainable peacetime requirement that is directly related to the number of ships the RAN may have available under normal peacetime availability requirements.

24 helicopters obviously affords us a surge capability for higher priority operations...

RAN will alo have 6x MRH-90 helos in-service by the time the Romeos are available and which will be capable of undertaking a significant number of useful maritime missions.

 

[t68]

Is anyone else seeing the irony here that it is the whinging from the resources industry and the West who don't feel defended enough that has prompted the FPR, but it is the resources industry that won't give the RAN room alongside to refuel/resupply? Maybe instead of the RRT, Australia should be implementing the Resource Defence Tax.

.

Interesting it’s not a bad idea if they can bring in a Resource Defence Tax to support the ACPB and move current expenditure over to the rest of the RAN, to improve current ANZAC or put it aside for the ANZAC MKII. Wonder what the current yearly operating budget is for the ACPB is?

I think most of the general population would agree to that with the vast amount of profit they make.

 

[John Newman]

John Newman and Tee_Centre_10 have covered your question pretty well.

The helicopter complement for an LHD deployed on an operation will be tailored to the task.

For example on a peacetime training cruise with a company of troops embarked they may deploy with with just a detachment of army MRH90s or Blackhawks (perhaps just 4 - 6 helos) but for full scale amphibious exercises with both ships available I expect the navy and army will want to test their capability. In this case we could see a full trooplift squadron plus a detachment of Chinooks and/or Tiger ARHs split between the two ships. In addition I understand that each LHD will have a dedicated navy MRH90 allocated for utility work. As was the case with the old LPAs it would be possible to embark a few Seahawks to supplement those carried by the escorts if the threat of attack by submarines or fast attack craft was considered high but this would be at the expense of some army helos. The stated requirement when the LHDs went out to tender was the ability to operate 12 medium helicopters so I think a maximum of around 14 as suggested by John is probably close to the mark. An example of helo mix split between 2 LHDs could be a along the lines of 16 army and 2 navy MRH90s, 4 Tigers and 2 Chinooks.

Tas

Tas,

Thanks for confirming / backing up what Tee Centre and I said.

Just to expland on the operation of the LHD's a bit.

I would think that its going to be quiet a few years anyway to get to the point of being "fully operational" for the LHD's.

That plan is probably not in the public domain (does anyone know / able to discuss the plan?), but I could imagine that from the time the navy gets the "keys" to the ship from the builder to being to be able to carry a full / mixed load of aircraft is many years away.

And of course added to that is the ability to carry / operate a full load of troops, tanks, armoured vehicles, trucks, operating the 4 LCM-1E's, etc.

Firstly the ships company needs to become proficient at operating the ship itself, then building up the skills to operate the LCM's, loading /unloading tanks and vehicles, test landing / take offs / operations of the various types of helicopters.

Then the task of learing to operate / handle "multiple" aircraft and then multiple types of aircraft at the same time.

And finally operating all of the above at the same time, sucessfully, in a full scale amphibious exercise.

John

 

[donuteater]

Donut, your question,14 or 32?

Have a look at this link, it shows a cutaway of an LHD:

File:Lhd cutaway.jpg - Royal Australian Navy


As you will see there are 3 main decks, (1) heavy vehicle deck / welldock, (2) light vehicle deck / hangar and (3) the flight deck.

The ships are never going to "operate" with 32, sure it could probably "transport" 32, if the aircraft were stored in the hangar and spilling into the light vehicle deck and of course carried on the flight deck too.

So a "full operational" compliment is probably around the 14 mark. Not that they will probably have anywhere near that number onboard on a regular basis.

Why would the LHD's being carrying Romeo's? Its NOT an ASW Carrier!! The escorting destroyers and frigates will do that job.

The LHD's will be carrying Army / Navy transport helicopters, eg MRH90's or Blackhawks.


Yes the plan for the 24 Romeo's is to have 8 available for shipboard operations at anyone time, there probably will be a "surge" capacity, if required, but the remaining 16 will be in mainteance or land based training.

Not all the Frigates are at see at the one time anyway, I went past Garden Island the other day to have a look at Choules and I could see 5-6 Frigates tied up alongside.

As for the AWD's, the older Seahawks will be available for operation till enough of the Romeo's are in service.

Thanks a lot, I am a pilot and I am clocking up my hours and last week I flew up the coast and the flightpath I took passes garden island, I saw Choules, Tobruck and about 6 frigates as well. Also I dont know if you have seen it but on the other side of the harbour, the navy has all of their minehunters or decomissioned minehunters. I cant belive there is only space for 2 helicopters on that massive flight deck. How do I put the pictures I took on a post?

 

[ADMk2]

Thanks a lot, I am a pilot and I am clocking up my hours and last week I flew up the coast and the flightpath I took passes garden island, I saw Choules, Tobruck and about 6 frigates as well. Also I dont know if you have seen it but on the other side of the harbour, the navy has all of their minehunters or decomissioned minehunters. I cant belive there is only space for 2 helicopters on that massive flight deck. How do I put the pictures I took on a post?

You can upload them as attachments, though there are size limits on the photos that can be uploaded as well as an overall size of the attachments you can add or you can create a Flickr or photo shack account and link to them.

Once you've made at least 50 posts, you can add links to your posts.

 

[John Newman]

Thanks a lot, I am a pilot and I am clocking up my hours and last week I flew up the coast and the flightpath I took passes garden island, I saw Choules, Tobruck and about 6 frigates as well. Also I dont know if you have seen it but on the other side of the harbour, the navy has all of their minehunters or decomissioned minehunters. I cant belive there is only space for 2 helicopters on that massive flight deck. How do I put the pictures I took on a post?

Donut,

A pilot hey? Well that explains your "focus" about aircraft and how many can fit on a ship!!

"Only space for 2" I assume you are referring to Choules?

You need to understand her role, she is a LSD(A), she is not a "first wave" ship, like the LHD's, in an amphibious assault, her role (and also Tobruk) is to transport equipment, rather than troops.

If she was involved in a major operations her decks, below and above, would be filled with trucks, containers, equipment, etc.

There is no need for her to carry anymore than one or two aircraft at any one time, it would take away from her primary role, ok?

With the minehunters, I assume you are referring to HMAS Waterhen at Waverton? Yes the 6 Huon Minehunters, and other navy support craft are based there, its not a "graveyard" for decommissioned navy ships.

Whilst at certain times two of the six Huons have been "officially" decomissioned, they have/were/are back in commission doing patrol work in the north.

Photo upload? AD has explained that to you in a separate post.

Donut, can I suggest that you have a really really good read of the defence website, including publications like the Defence Capability Plan, check out the various individual sites for the Navy, Army and RAAF.

Spend some time reading all of it and it should give you a better insite into the ADF.

 

[Volkodav]

Interesting it’s not a bad idea if they can bring in a Resource Defence Tax to support the ACPB and move current expenditure over to the rest of the RAN, to improve current ANZAC or put it aside for the ANZAC MKII. Wonder what the current yearly operating budget is for the ACPB is?

I think most of the general population would agree to that with the vast amount of profit they make.

No no no, that sounds too much like you are suggesting that the miners (multinationals and Australian owned) should pay their fair share. If anyone tries to make that happen then we will have to live through another stupid add campaign “youre gunna get socked’ or something equally annoying, aimed at stupid people whose lives are actually being made harder by mining profits.

Besides that I do agree that if they are demanding, not just defence presence but other things like infra structure and government training assistance, friendly working visa etc, they should fork out more to help pay. The average tax payer shouldn’t be expected to subsidise billionaires.

 

[John Newman]

No no no, that sounds too much like you are suggesting that the miners (multinationals and Australian owned) should pay their fair share. If anyone tries to make that happen then we will have to live through another stupid add campaign “youre gunna get socked’ or something equally annoying, aimed at stupid people whose lives are actually being made harder by mining profits.

Besides that I do agree that if they are demanding, not just defence presence but other things like infra structure and government training assistance, friendly working visa etc, they should fork out more to help pay. The average tax payer shouldn’t be expected to subsidise billionaires.

It not just the miners, its the car industry too, everyones got their hand out for something extra, be it money or protection for their industry.

I'm not on the miners side, but if they can get away with it, well.

And I'm sure there are lots of other sectors that have good lobbyists banging on the doors in Canberra.

Getting back to the North, maybe if the two sides, miners and the Government, put their heads together to build and use "shared" infrastructure, it could be a win win for both sides.

The mining tax, or not, well, thats another story...................

 

[Volkodav]

It not just the miners, its the car industry too, everyones got their hand out for something extra, be it money or protection for their industry.

I'm not on the miners side, but if they can get away with it, well.

And I'm sure there are lots of other sectors that have good lobbyists banging on the doors in Canberra.

Getting back to the North, maybe if the two sides, miners and the Government, put their heads together to build and use "shared" infrastructure, it could be a win win for both sides.

The mining tax, or not, well, thats another story...................

Just look at QLD at the moment, Palmer is suing because he wants to control the shared new railway, or more to the point wants to own it so it isn't shared. We are going backward because corporations are actually required to look after their share holders interests above all else, so if that means actually doing something in a given way that would disadvantage a competitor or reduce their costs, tax outlays etc. they are required to do it. They are not charities and thats something people seem to forget, if they are not required by law to do or not to do specific thing then they are required to put profits and future profits first with not regards to the country they are operating in or to the people who are citizens of that country.

 

[Tasman]

Tas,

Thanks for confirming / backing up what Tee Centre and I said.

Just to expland on the operation of the LHD's a bit.

I would think that its going to be quiet a few years anyway to get to the point of being "fully operational" for the LHD's.

That plan is probably not in the public domain (does anyone know / able to discuss the plan?), but I could imagine that from the time the navy gets the "keys" to the ship from the builder to being to be able to carry a full / mixed load of aircraft is many years away.

And of course added to that is the ability to carry / operate a full load of troops, tanks, armoured vehicles, trucks, operating the 4 LCM-1E's, etc.

Firstly the ships company needs to become proficient at operating the ship itself, then building up the skills to operate the LCM's, loading /unloading tanks and vehicles, test landing / take offs / operations of the various types of helicopters.

Then the task of learing to operate / handle "multiple" aircraft and then multiple types of aircraft at the same time.

And finally operating all of the above at the same time, sucessfully, in a full scale amphibious exercise.

John

John,

I only have info that is in the public domain. However, from what I have heard and read I agree that it will take many years before the ADF will be able to operate the LHDs at full capacity. The actual mix and numbers of army aviation assets that will be deployed seems tight lipped apart from the fact that it has been stated that the ships will be able to carry 4 times the aviation assets of the LPAs but navy has stated its intention to form an RAN MRH90 flight for each LHD (and also Success although given the reports in this thread re the state of that ship I wonder if that will happen!).

What I think is significant is the desire of the army, as stated by Chief of Army at the 2010 RAN Sea Power Conference, to form a trained amphibious ready group built around one of the ten battlegroups that are planned. He further stated that the army needs to learn "how to live, deploy, operate in, and operate from the LHDs." I believe it is likely that company sized units will initially be deployed aboard the LHDs in order to develop skills, doctrine and the ability to live aboard for sustained periods of time. The regular crew of the LHDs will include personnel from all three services so it is a real opportunity to develop joint operations skills to a high level. The army top brass seems genuinely enthused about the challenge of forming an operational ready amphibious force. It will be interesting to see whether that enthusiasm will be shared by front line combat troops but I guess that is a topic for the army thread.


Tas

 

[Aussie optimist]

No no no, that sounds too much like you are suggesting that the miners (multinationals and Australian owned) should pay their fair share. If anyone tries to make that happen then we will have to live through another stupid add campaign “youre gunna get socked’ or something equally annoying, aimed at stupid people whose lives are actually being made harder by mining profits.

Besides that I do agree that if they are demanding, not just defence presence but other things like infra structure and government training assistance, friendly working visa etc, they should fork out more to help pay. The average tax payer shouldn’t be expected to subsidise billionaires.

You guys make a very interesting point, the defence planners are seeming to be looking to address the perceived lack of defence presents in an area which is currently carrying our economy. The miners are getting a pretty good deal at the moment like well all you gotta do is look at fortescue metals which admitted it didn't pay tax for 8 years and said "whoops we made an over sight we will pay from now on" if that was you or me the tax department would have us bent over and be applying lube. So why doesn't the government set up a nation building fund which is made up of the new mining tax proceeds, this money can go towards defence capabilities i.e new sub project, anzac II's and other major national infrastructure projects. Maybe its too logical for canberra to take on.

 

[Tasman]

The rationale for the RNZN cruisers was that they were to slot directly into the RAN OoB, which is why the RNZN was a cruiser/frigate force post war.

The Bellona-class were described as light cruisers but would be more accurately described as AA cruisers because of the DP nature of the 5.25in guns compared to the 6in guns of other RN light cruisers. Their role was to act as AA escorts to the RAN carrier groups, and given the RNZN didn't have to pay for them (although it could be argued that NZ did through their direct funding of the RN), they were quite the bargain. But technology and funding shortfalls overtook them and made them obsolete.

It is debatable whether a RNZN carrier could even have been viable with the NZ services cut back post-WW2.

As a small child I remember Bellona and a Kiwi Lock class frigate accompanied the Australian carrier Sydney on a visit to Hobart as part of a combined Comonwealth fleet of 14 warships (the largest number of warships ever seen in Hobart). It fullfilled the role you described acting as an escort for the Oz carrier. The fleet was a tremendous sight as was the flypast straight over my house by the Sydney's airgroup. Gee now I am showing my age...


Tas

 

[aussienscale]

John,

I only have info that is in the public domain. However, from what I have heard and read I agree that it will take many years before the ADF will be able to operate the LHDs at full capacity. The actual mix and numbers of army aviation assets that will be deployed seems tight lipped apart from the fact that it has been stated that the ships will be able to carry 4 times the aviation assets of the LPAs but navy has stated its intention to form an RAN MRH90 flight for each LHD (and also Success although given the reports in this thread re the state of that ship I wonder if that will happen!).

P.S. Do yourselves a favour and skip the first 25 minutes of the first video of the conference, obviously the Navy Media Unit does not have the budget for editing programs

What I think is significant is the desire of the army, as stated by Chief of Army at the 2010 RAN Sea Power Conference, to form a trained amphibious ready group built around one of the ten battlegroups that are planned. He further stated that the army needs to learn "how to live, deploy, operate in, and operate from the LHDs." I believe it is likely that company sized units will initially be deployed aboard the LHDs in order to develop skills, doctrine and the ability to live aboard for sustained periods of time. The regular crew of the LHDs will include personnel from all three services so it is a real opportunity to develop joint operations skills to a high level. The army top brass seems genuinely enthused about the challenge of forming an operational ready amphibious force. It will be interesting to see whether that enthusiasm will be shared by front line combat troops but I guess that is a topic for the army thread.


Tas

Hey Tas, Nice to have you back and posting again
Yourself and others would be interested in looking at the below site
Media | RAN Seapower Conference 2012

Seapower 2012 has just finished, I have not had a chance to look through or check out the youtube vids of the sessions, but it would be a pretty good bet there would be a lot of talk regarding Amphib ops and the way forward

Cheers

 

[aussienscale]

Thanks a lot, I am a pilot and I am clocking up my hours and last week I flew up the coast and the flightpath I took passes garden island, I saw Choules, Tobruck and about 6 frigates as well. Also I dont know if you have seen it but on the other side of the harbour, the navy has all of their minehunters or decomissioned minehunters. I cant belive there is only space for 2 helicopters on that massive flight deck. How do I put the pictures I took on a post?

What are you flying at the moment ? Guessing you mean a private liscence ? where did you train ? Just curious, my brother in law is a Chief Flying Instructor and Chief Pilot and did a lot of time out of Bankstown. Are you intending to join the military ?

 

[icelord]

Thanks a lot, I am a pilot and I am clocking up my hours and last week I flew up the coast and the flightpath I took passes garden island, I saw Choules, Tobruck and about 6 frigates as well. Also I dont know if you have seen it but on the other side of the harbour, the navy has all of their minehunters or decomissioned minehunters. I cant belive there is only space for 2 helicopters on that massive flight deck. How do I put the pictures I took on a post?

Ummmm...i work at FBE, and i can say with full confidence, theres no way in hell it was last week you would see choules, tobruk and 6 frigates...