t68
Well-Known Member
So would that make him a RAAF member now if he's going to the conversion course to super bugs?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
MAN that is going to be interesting to follow!!! Maybe go on exchange with US Marine and do F-35B training??? PLEASE Maybe navy is trying to keep all options open in regards to Canberra class. FINGERS CROSSED
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe he will have to choose between the sexy uniform and the sexy ride. ADF flight training is multi service through to a point when the students proceed to there service of choice however if an army or navy helo student show particular aptitude for fast jets the RAAF is the only option.
No, the Navy is not going to operate STOVL Lightnings from the Canberras. If you want to see the reasons why please do a search in the Navy forum for related terms, it's been discussed to death there.
It's actually not that unusual for Army or Navy helicopter pilots to be shaped towards a service transfer and fast jets if they show a particular talent for flying. It happened to an Army pilot I know, but he figured he didn't put himself through 18 months of RMC just to transfer to the RAAF.
t68
Well-Known Member
One can only hope, but with the goverment and budget in such a hole I don't think even the coalition could get another flat top over the line, unless the poms want to give us an interest free loan to buy POW
That said a pair of QEs with 50 F-35Bs would be nice, as well as being affordable and as strategically justified as any other big ticket purchase for an economy the size of Australias. Unfortunately with a succession of governments that can't even wrap their heads around the need for OPVs and reasonable sustainment models and funding for existing assets, there is no chance of a carrier.
At the moment the way the UK economy is I bet if we signed up to buying 8-10 type 26's "oh and by the way we'll take that extra Queen Elizabeth class off your hands as well" they would JUMP at the chance.
Good for us and great for them. ( I know I probably live in a dream world but what does it hurt).
Good for us and great for them. ( I know I probably live in a dream world but what does it hurt).
Trackmaster
Member
I simply found it interesting. I have had my questions answered by Raven 22 and Volkodav. (And also Bonza)
I have a very clear understanding of what the LHD's are for.
Last edited:
Not trying to jump down your throat or anything but you have to look at the issues of crewing, training, acquisition and sustainment that would be created by the acquisition of a fleet carrier. And I'm pretty certain the UK is going to keep both of their carriers, the 2nd one isn't an "extra", it's what's needed to sustain their capability, and good on them for making the decision to keep both of them.
One carrier gives you an asset that sometimes allows you to put a capability at sea, when it isn't in a maintenance or training cycle. In addition it necessitates the acquisition of what, 24-36 F-35Bs, which only adds to the acquisition, training and sustainment costs, already extremely high for an on and off capability. Yes, you could operate F-35Bs from a Canberra, but only in a marginal sense, as the class doesn't have the requisite fuel and ammunition space to sustain fast jet sorties. That's just not what they're designed for. Ideally if you want to sustain a carrier capability you would need three units. Again, if you have a look around both this thread and some others over the years you'll find some very in depth discussion as to the practicalities of such a plan. I hope you decide to check this information out as I think you'll find it very informative.
Even talking about acquiring 8-10 frigates is a pipe dream at this point. Forget the carrier, I'd be jumping for joy if the government actually put in for 8-10 large surface units to go with the 3 AWDs. But I have serious doubts as to the likelihood of the surface fleet topping 10 major units total any time soon or indeed in the next 10-20 years.
Happy to stand corrected on any of the above but I doubt you'll find serious talk of a carrier capability for the RAN that takes into account all of the realities of such an acquisition. I can wish the RAN operated flat tops as much as the next man but it simply isn't going to happen.
t68
Well-Known Member
If by some miracle we did get POW, the LHD and the CV would have very different jobs within the RAN but each can do the same work if needed to a degree.
Well considering the recent reports that successive Australian governments wasted most of the $190 billion windfall from the mining boom on structurally damaging and unsustainable tax cuts it could be argued that more of it could / should have been spent on nation building infrastructure and strategically important projects.
No argument, but politically it seems they simply don't care. Howard at least paid of the debt and got some money in the bank. I have no problem with stimulus but the size of government spending in 5 of the last 6 years (and the waste) is a bit eye watering.
A sovereign wealth fund would have been a great thing for the future.
They don't care.
22 consecutive years of economic growth, a huge windfall from a resources construction boom and it was pissed up against the wall by consecutive governments and oppositions trying to out bid each other for the bogan vote.
On the defence side things were bad under Keating but got worse under Howard, not even the shock of being forced, unprepared, into Timor by public opinion made much of a difference. It wasn't until the embarrassment of not having the capabilities publically promised to support the US in the war on terror that we saw any real improvement and even then we never reached the level of capability the government and public thought we had.
The Rudd white paper was an improvement but what happened after a certain union lawyer took over I can't even bare rehashing.
I see that the current Aussie Minister of Defence has agreed to giving the Indonesian Navy access to the RAN sub rescue facilities at HMAS Stirling. There is also agreement to cooperate on sub maintenance and and sustainment along with sub rescue. Second Annual Australia-Indonesia Defence Ministers
John Newman
The Bunker Group
As Bonza said, we can all wish that the RAN operated Carriers, but it’s just not going to happen.
Earlier this year marked the 30th anniversary of the decision by the (then new) Hawke Government not to proceed with a replacement for Melbourne, and here we are 30 years on, nothing has changed.
The very big and first hurdle would be for the Government to change it’s Foreign and Defence policies, that would be a big move, but again, I can’t ever see it happening.
And of course the next major issue is funding, currently the Defence Budget stands at just over 1.5% of GDP, with both sides of politics stating that the ‘goal’ is to be closer to 2%, and even if it gets to 2% it will be interesting to see if all that is currently contained in the White Paper and DCP can even be achieved at that level of spending.
What level would Defence spending have to be at to build and maintain a credible Carrier force without reducing the current or planned capabilities? Would it have to be at least 2.5%? Maybe more?
As for the ships, one won’t provide a full time capability, two might just get you there for most of the time, and three would certainly provide a full time capability. So let’s say it’s two ships, the LHD’s could possibly be backups, but of course that takes them away from their amphibious role.
Would the QE Class be too big and expensive to operate and maintain, or as alexsa said, maybe the Italian Cavour would be the size we could manage, or is something in the middle, say the size of one of the USN LHD/LHA’s be more appropriate?
Then of course there is aircraft, again as Bonza suggested, 24-36 F35B’s would probably be needed. To allow for operations, training, maintenance and attrition, it’s probably closer to 36, added to that is probably the need for a Sqn of Merlin AEW helicopters too.
Would you also add a flight of MH60R’s? And some MH60S, for example, in a search and rescue role too.
Facilities at Albatross would have to upgraded too for the additional aircraft, both fixed and rotary wing types.
And then of course there is basing for the ships, there has been the recent discussion of what needs to be done to FBE to accommodate the new LHD’s, etc, add a couple of Carriers and Garden Island is getting pretty crowded to say the least.
The Carriers would logically have to be based at FBE, keeps them close to Albatross, the LHD’s and Choules would probably have to be relocated, maybe a new base in Brisbane for example.
Would the Destroyer and Frigate fleet need to be increased to provide sufficient escorts for both the Carriers and the LHD's?
And last but not least, manpower. Would all of the above add another 1000 or 2000, or maybe somewhere in between?
All of the above adds up to a hell of a lot of money.
Anyway, as much as I would like to see the RAN have a Carrier force again too, realistically, I can’t see it ever happening. I don’t think I’ll see it in my lifetime!
Earlier this year marked the 30th anniversary of the decision by the (then new) Hawke Government not to proceed with a replacement for Melbourne, and here we are 30 years on, nothing has changed.
The very big and first hurdle would be for the Government to change it’s Foreign and Defence policies, that would be a big move, but again, I can’t ever see it happening.
And of course the next major issue is funding, currently the Defence Budget stands at just over 1.5% of GDP, with both sides of politics stating that the ‘goal’ is to be closer to 2%, and even if it gets to 2% it will be interesting to see if all that is currently contained in the White Paper and DCP can even be achieved at that level of spending.
What level would Defence spending have to be at to build and maintain a credible Carrier force without reducing the current or planned capabilities? Would it have to be at least 2.5%? Maybe more?
As for the ships, one won’t provide a full time capability, two might just get you there for most of the time, and three would certainly provide a full time capability. So let’s say it’s two ships, the LHD’s could possibly be backups, but of course that takes them away from their amphibious role.
Would the QE Class be too big and expensive to operate and maintain, or as alexsa said, maybe the Italian Cavour would be the size we could manage, or is something in the middle, say the size of one of the USN LHD/LHA’s be more appropriate?
Then of course there is aircraft, again as Bonza suggested, 24-36 F35B’s would probably be needed. To allow for operations, training, maintenance and attrition, it’s probably closer to 36, added to that is probably the need for a Sqn of Merlin AEW helicopters too.
Would you also add a flight of MH60R’s? And some MH60S, for example, in a search and rescue role too.
Facilities at Albatross would have to upgraded too for the additional aircraft, both fixed and rotary wing types.
And then of course there is basing for the ships, there has been the recent discussion of what needs to be done to FBE to accommodate the new LHD’s, etc, add a couple of Carriers and Garden Island is getting pretty crowded to say the least.
The Carriers would logically have to be based at FBE, keeps them close to Albatross, the LHD’s and Choules would probably have to be relocated, maybe a new base in Brisbane for example.
Would the Destroyer and Frigate fleet need to be increased to provide sufficient escorts for both the Carriers and the LHD's?
And last but not least, manpower. Would all of the above add another 1000 or 2000, or maybe somewhere in between?
All of the above adds up to a hell of a lot of money.
Anyway, as much as I would like to see the RAN have a Carrier force again too, realistically, I can’t see it ever happening. I don’t think I’ll see it in my lifetime!
- Status