Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

A week or two back there was a write ap about collective training with all three variants, I think this is what is meant when RAAF pilots fly different variants. If I recall correctly the headline was something about a game changer

there is exposure to all the variants because its a common sense interoperational training - we conduct over 30 international exercises per year with a wide variety of partners and capabilities.

familiarity with coalition and allied partners op procedures is part of the combat capability scenarios that every platform is subjected to

 

[gf0012-aust]

My understanding is when RAAF crews began training on the Rhinos that they also did carrier qualification and unfortunately we didn't end up ordering a CTOL carrier. Tongue in cheek but ADF personnel train on platforms and capabilities that are not part of the ADFs OOB all the time.

yep, but when its master units going over to train as a cohort - then thats when you start paying attention to possible force planning/structure changes

you only have to look at some of the RAAF tactical trainers - they've got hours on planes that we are not even remotely interested in as part of a future force construct

 

[Volkodav]

The RAAF are very good at justifying very small quantities of equipment to establish or maintain capabilities that they require while at the same time convincing the same senior public servants and politicians that niche capabilities in in the other services are too small to be effective and too expensive to expand to a point where they would be useful. When the RAAF deploys a single Orion, Wedgetail, C-130, KC-30 or even a couple of Hornets to an area operations, it is an invaluable contribution to coalition activities, the thought of half a dozen F-35Bs on an LHD is dismissed as pointless, expensive, tactically useless.

 

[SpazSinbad]

The RAAF are very good at justifying very small quantities of equipment to establish or maintain capabilities that they require while at the same time convincing the same senior public servants and politicians that niche capabilities in in the other services are too small to be effective and too expensive to expand to a point where they would be useful. When the RAAF deploys a single Orion, Wedgetail, C-130, KC-30 or even a couple of Hornets to an area operations, it is an invaluable contribution to coalition activities, the thought of half a dozen F-35Bs on an LHD is dismissed as pointless, expensive, tactically useless.

At the risk of being annoying :dance I like the cut of your jib/gybe 'Volkodav' :fly however as some point out the fat lady has almost left the stage - we need the chap in the wings, with the shepherd hook/crook, to pull her off it.

What is it with 'phatships' anyway? Are these LHDs in wallyworld?

 

[gf0012-aust]

What is it with 'phatships' anyway? Are these LHDs in wallyworld?

that is the internal nickname for the LHD's

just as B1 and B2 were the nicknames for Kanimbla and Manoora

 

[Volkodav]

At the risk of being annoying :dance I like the cut of your jib/gybe 'Volkodav' :fly however as some point out the fat lady has almost left the stage - we need the chap in the wings, with the shepherd hook/crook, to pull her off it.

What is it with 'phatships' anyway? Are these LHDs in wallyworld?

Phat as in fat and cool, could also be a reference to the fatcats at dfat who are the real sponsors of the LHDs. I used to work in a wally world, it was the building were we kept most of the systems, safety, systems safety, quality, administration and contracts people, many of whom appeared unaware we were building ships and could have just as easily been on a project building tour buses or icecream trucks.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Phat as in fat and cool, could also be a reference to the fatcats at dfat who are the real sponsors of the LHDs.

also unkindly referred to in some circles as DFAT1 and DFAT2 - or even more unkindly, NGO1 and NGO2

 

[koala]

At the risk of being annoying :dance I like the cut of your jib/gybe 'Volkodav' :fly however as some point out the fat lady has almost left the stage - we need the chap in the wings, with the shepherd hook/crook, to pull her off it.

What is it with 'phatships' anyway? Are these LHDs in wallyworld?

We haven't even mastered helicopter landings on all positions, managed to land Abrahams, let alone landing STOVL assets.
Gently gently softly softly, there is still 30 plus years to go!

 

[vonnoobie]

My understanding is when RAAF crews began training on the Rhinos that they also did carrier qualification and unfortunately we didn't end up ordering a CTOL carrier. Tongue in cheek but ADF personnel train on platforms and capabilities that are not part of the ADFs OOB all the time.

That said I would love to see the ADF operating F-35Bs off flat tops, be they the Canberras, or another type in the future. I can see its utility, that the capability would add far more to the whole than the official line admits.

The official story is that to do it properly is unaffordable and the capability costs more than it is worth if you don't do it properly, "properly" is then set at an unattainable level. The truth however is a little different as the F-35B is an additional capability that complements and enhances what we already have rather than somehow impairing or reducing it.

Great example.. We have had guys flying F-15's but have we ever got them.. Nope.

 

[SpazSinbad]

We have had, or still have, exchange pilots on F-22s - a nice introduction to the future capabilities of the F-35 - but no F-22s for Oz - no siree bob. The best introduction to the new capabilities would be the video of the USMC exchange pilot with F-22s, talking last year in Denmark. But no F-22s for USMC sir no sir.

7. David 'Chip' Berke: 5th Gen Experience

"Published on May 11, 2015 Centre for Military Studies
In April 2015 Centre for Military Studies and the Williams Foundation hosted a symposium on "Integrating Innovative Airpower" in Copenhagen. The symposium was attended by international scholars, military practitioners, and representatives from the defense industry."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

 

[ngatimozart]

We have had, or still have, exchange pilots on F-22s - a nice introduction to the future capabilities of the F-35 - but no F-22s for Oz - no siree bob. The best introduction to the new capabilities would be the video of the USMC exchange pilot with F-22s, talking last year in Denmark. But no F-22s for USMC sir no sir.

7. David 'Chip' Berke: 5th Gen Experience


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

You know sometimes politeness and a little common courtesy go a long way.

 

[SpazSinbad]

You know sometimes politeness and a little common courtesy go a long way.

Then what specifically is impolite about my post above? I see humour of the military persuasion in my drolleries.

 

[ngatimozart]

Then what specifically is impolite about my post above? I see humour of the military persuasion in my drolleries.

I am ex military too both air force and navy, but not everyone gets it nor understands it. We have to allow for their unfortunate circumstance in life.

 

[SpazSinbad]

I am ex military too both air force and navy, but not everyone gets it nor understands it. We have to allow for their unfortunate circumstance in life.

Then there is nothing specifically impolite in my post? Have you been impolite to the 'unfortunates'?

 

[ngatimozart]

Then there is nothing specifically impolite in my post? Have you been impolite to the 'unfortunates'?

I try not to be on here The point is not everybody gets our sense of humour and sometimes they take it the wrong way. It isn't so much that specific post but some others as well. I called them unfortunates because unfortunately they are still civilians and never had our adventurous life style. Of course on shore leave I only visited museums, churches and libraries Anyway enough of this.

 

[rossfrb_1]

My understanding is when RAAF crews began training on the Rhinos that they also did carrier qualification and unfortunately we didn't end up ordering a CTOL carrier. Tongue in cheek but ADF personnel train on platforms and capabilities that are not part of the ADFs OOB all the time.

snip

Yep
And at least one RAAF pilot has flown F-22's
No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

and we all know how many of those the RAAF ended up with....

rb

oh just saw post http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/n...avy-discussions-updates-5905-1275/#post310594

 

[gf0012-aust]

Phat as in fat and cool, could also be a reference to the fatcats at dfat who are the real sponsors of the LHDs. I used to work in a wally world, it was the building were we kept most of the systems, safety, systems safety, quality, administration and contracts people, many of whom appeared unaware we were building ships and could have just as easily been on a project building tour buses or icecream trucks.

Its more about phat ladies of the sea - wide of girth etc.... and because they're fat enough to do a multitude of jobs,

can't use B1 (or B2) anymore as thats reverted back to something elses nickname

 

[SpazSinbad]

I try not to be on here The point is not everybody gets our sense of humour and sometimes they take it the wrong way. It isn't so much that specific post but some others as well. I called them unfortunates because unfortunately they are still civilians and never had our adventurous life style. Of course on shore leave I only visited museums, churches and libraries Anyway enough of this.

OK thanks. I get that and will cease and desist with my humour. I was going to say I don't get Kiwi humour - mostly - but I got that - tah. Only facts from on now.

 

[Goknub]

If the RAAF can find the funds for LHD #3 then they can have F35Bs, but keep your hands off #1 and #2. The Army doesn't have enough lift as it is to be losing valuable deck space.

------------

I'm quite happy that the RAN has moved away from the OCV minor combatant idea. The patrolship and warship roles should be kept separate and there is better value in a "universal" warship. The era of limited/single role warships should be left behind in my view. We will be unable to achieve the quantity of hulls needed so the few we have should be as powerful as we can get them.

 

[vonnoobie]

If the RAAF can find the funds for LHD #3 then they can have F35Bs, but keep your hands off #1 and #2. The Army doesn't have enough lift as it is to be losing valuable deck space.

------------

I'm quite happy that the RAN has moved away from the OCV minor combatant idea. The patrolship and warship roles should be kept separate and there is better value in a "universal" warship. The era of limited/single role warships should be left behind in my view. We will be unable to achieve the quantity of hulls needed so the few we have should be as powerful as we can get them.

In regards to the LHD's I agree, F35B's provide only a marginal capability at the expense of our key requirement.

As to OCV's and universal warships not so sure that I do agree. While larger frigates and destroyers are awesome and very capable we don't exactly have them in number's, OCV's could have been an asset to have filled in expanding our number's at a marginal cost.

That all said, another LHD is unlikely and if we were to get something with the idea of using F35's off of then I'd rather we do it properly and not half a** it ie: Buy something like the Italian Cavour class, South Korea has already said they plan to acquire two such ships around the 2030's but so far this is all wishful thinking. We have far greater priorities then being able to launch a half dozen F35B's.

As for OCV's, they also are unlikely for the foreseeable future though should we require something like them they are far quicker and cheaper to build then frigates and destroyers especially if we can try and retain a constant build in WA with them (though that is unlikely as it would mean either a. stretching the per unit build b. Shortening the life of the asset's or c. A mix of a and b)