CARRIER FORCE 2005 - HMAS Melbourne in the modern era

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

southern cross RE:SC 9/25/2005 1:02:26 AM

>>>I wasn't aware that our entire navy centred around the carrier before? <<< I am pretty sure it didn't, but I thought you were trying to say it was going to in this case, ;( I need some water

Quote Reply

DropBear RE:SC 9/25/2005 1:06:38 AM

No, I was thinking a modernised Melby with a couple of frigates and the odd Collins could do the trick. Besides, I doubt the RAN would be doing anything else big as far as deployments/exercises if they were concentrating efforts of a carrier in a war zone, right?

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust RE:SC 9/25/2005 1:12:06 AM

"Did we not have independant destroyer sqns with accompanying destroyer escorts that operated away from the carrier, as well as her escort?" Carrier support in the RAN was always at the minimalist level. we tended to operate more like the Indians or Chileans in size. Even the Canadians operated larger CSF's (bit busier in the Atlantic). My father served on Terrible and Sydney and said that they never had more than 3 accompanying them at any one time. Terrible came over sans escort. Sydney as a troopie often only had 1 offensive plus an oiler. In current peacetime terms, I would expect airwarfare, ASW, oiler and maybe a sub depending on mission. sub would indicate a doctrine shift though as they're more likely to operate like an underwater version of SASR. Although if we don't replace Melbournes drivetrain, then the Collins would have little problem acting in a fleet support role. But, thats why you have nukes, they can scoot ahead, sniff and ferret ahead of the CSF. Conventionals don;t have the same sprint speed - let alone the capacity to keep a decent range in place if they go charging about all over the neighbourhood like some schizophrenic Jack Russell...

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:doggtag...also 9/25/2005 2:52:00 AM

-"Why would we possibly want AIM-9X when we have Asraam?" Wasn't aware of that, DB. By all means, keep it. -"a) Why bother? Too much R&D to fit a new engine and possibly create an entirely new derivative plane." Umm, no. Pratt & Whitney already took care of that back in the late 1980s. They offered it as an option for Singapore's Super Skyhawks, and claimed it offered, @ 12,000 pounds thrust, 20% more rapid acceleration than the basic J52. The GE F404-GE-100D was also offered, claiming it offered a 35% better climb rate, 40% greater acceleration, and 15% greater dash speed that the basic J52 of the Skyhawk. The R&D was done and proved successful. Singapore opted for the F404 in its A-4SU. -"b) to d) As per a)." The BK27s should fit quite nicely. I would at least try and replace the antiquated Mk12 guns with at least the faster-firing M39s of the F-5. Same ammo. And as for the radar: there's plenty of better kits than what the last A-4s in service had. I would at least think that, had Australia kept them around this long, you'd at least have fitted the ARBS Angle Rate Bombing System in the nose. And OK, maybe TVC is going to far: the Scooter, even without it, certainly challenged and won against plenty of the newer hotrods while in USN Aggressor hands. -"e) You could use Project Kahu cackpit and avionics." By all means, if you've got your own capable avionics and pit kit, use them. More power to home grown systems, I say. -"f) If an USMC A-4M could lug it, be my guest. All the hardware I already suggested exists now, in one form or another (except for the APKWS II, as the first APKWS wasn't considered effective enough, so now there is a new contract for it, again based off the 2.75inch Hydra rocket family.) I think it's mostly a matter of software upgrades to the Scooter's computer to handle it. -"g) Popeye weighs 1300kg. You be the judge." Wasn't so much the weight I was concerned with as the wingspan of Popeye. Skyhawks carried Bullpup Bs and Walleyes with ease: they weigh over 2300 pounds. -"h) Yep. RNDF had Sgt. Fletcher buddy gravy strokes." I was aware you had them. But a dedicated aerial tanker means you don't have to sacrifice any of the A-4s from offensive or defensive duty: they carry ordnance all the time, not fuel for their buddies. -"i) The RAN is stuck with them, so you can jolly well put up with them too! ;)" Aww, man! Seasprites? Well f*** it then! -"j) to k) Have money will travel, right?" Yup. Might as well build a new boat and just call her Melbourne and be done with it. After all, you're building amphibs. Why not see just how capable the shipyard is?

Quote Reply

doggtag We can rebuild you, make you better! We have the technology! 9/25/2005 3:01:25 AM

-"which is why I mentioned am ANZAC flight - use the kiwis scooters as they were the better beast." Ahh. I assumed wrongly then that, had Australia kept her Melbourne in operational condition (upgraded her over the years) that the Scooter fleet, Oz or NZ, would've been improved also (even more than what NZ did do, especially if the Melbourne HAD been used in Iraq or wherever.) Could've gotten even more interesting if NZ pilots were trained to supplement your carrier jocks, huh? I would almost then suggest splitting the expenses some, but that would be going to far: you'd always be fighting about who gets the carrier for which holidays.

Quote Reply

DropBear RE:doggtag...also 9/25/2005 4:37:55 AM

Our Hug Bugs use Asraam as it was thought superior to AIM-9X and already in service. Umm, no. Pratt & Whitney already took care of that back in the late 1980s. They offered it as an option for Singapore's Super Skyhawks, and claimed it offered, @ 12,000 pounds thrust, 20% more rapid acceleration than the basic J52. The GE F404-GE-100D was also offered, claiming it offered a 35% better climb rate, 40% greater acceleration, and 15% greater dash speed that the basic J52 of the Skyhawk. The R&D was done and proved successful. Singapore opted for the F404 in its A-4SU. Er, No. The A-4G my hypothetical is based on is not the same as the Singo Scooters now are they??? Wasn't so much the weight I was concerned with as the wingspan of Popeye. Skyhawks carried Bullpup Bs and Walleyes with ease: they weigh over 2300 pounds. The Pig can only carry two so I reckon the Scooter would struggle with a useable loadout. -"h) Yep. RNZDF had Sgt. Fletcher buddy gravy strokes." I was aware you had them. But a dedicated aerial tanker means you don't have to sacrifice any of the A-4s from offensive or defensive duty: they carry ordnance all the time, not fuel for their buddies. We don't (RAAF) the Kiwis did (RNZDF). Aww, man! Seasprites? Well f*** it then! You're telling me. The pieces of junk aren't even in service yet! :( Yup. Might as well build a new boat and just call her Melbourne and be done with it. After all, you're building amphibs. Why not see just how capable the shipyard is? You aren't familiar with our unions then? ;)

Quote Reply

DropBear RE:We can rebuild you, make you better! We have the technology! 9/25/2005 4:43:04 AM

Ahh. I assumed wrongly then that, had Australia kept her Melbourne in operational condition (upgraded her over the years) that the Scooter fleet, Oz or NZ, would've been improved also (even more than what NZ did do, especially if the Melbourne HAD been used in Iraq or wherever.) Of course they (Scooters)would have been improved also! Do you think we are bumpkins? We upgrade all our military equipment over time. The fact being that we had A-4E/F equivalent Scooters in out G Model and subsequently sold them to the sheep shaggers across the pond who then upgraded them to Kahu standards. hence them being the better beast as gf said.

Quote Reply

DropBear RE:We can rebuild you, make you better! We have the technology! 9/25/2005 4:53:30 AM

We can rebuild you, make you better! We have the technology! A tad arrogant isn't it? Perhaps this is what RAAF staff should say to their USAF counterparts.

Quote Reply

DropBear RE:We can rebuild you, make you better! We have the technology!...actually 9/25/2005 5:08:13 AM

Sadly not the case. USAF ACC mission-capability availability rate across the fleet of 67% link Geriatric Pigs 100% link I even believe it was as low as 98% at the last Red Flad the Pigs were at, due to an engine start issue. It took two hours but the old girl got in the air in the end. Now, what was that about making us better? ;) Per Ardua Ad Astra.

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:We can rebuild you, make you better! We have the technology!...actually 9/25/2005 9:22:35 AM

I wasn't implying the US improve your stuff, guys. I was borrowing a line from that movie, implying mankind's technological leaps and bounds as a whole (and comically implying that I was telling it to the A-4.) Sorry for the mix up. As for your unions...what's up then with that Spanish flat top? Sounds like your PM needs a few Honores down there to tell people to stop being stuck on stupid and get their collective heads out of their @sses. Of course, considering the "flaws" in the San Antonio amphib we here in the US recently received off the slipway, our unionized workers certainly slack off when they feel like it, too. But unfortunately, being in a union means no one can come up to you and say, "you need to straighten the hell up and fly right! What kind of slack-@ss job do you think this is!" Heh! And people wonder why all their jobs are going to china and other cheap labor countries! Back in the days when workers had little or no rights, unions were a good thing. Now, they can kill a country's economy just as quickly as a recession. You can't demand more from your employer than your willing to commit yourself. Unfortunately, I don't think many union leaders ever took economics. DB, maybe you need to start playing around with an AutoCAD program (the several years' old editions are quite cheap now). You might be able to design your own little Oz equivalent of Furash*ta's Navy. More power to you if you do.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT