Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Navy League lobbies for STOVL
AdvanceAustralia    7/8/2008 11:56:51 PM
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23993299-2702,00.html "Vertical take-off jets sought for Navy * Font Size: Decrease Increase * Print Page: Print July 09, 2008 THE federal government has been urged to buy a dozen vertical landing strike fighters to avert another Gallipoli. The Navy League, a defence lobby group, today said 12 new short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) versions of the Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) would give the Royal Australian Navy back an aircraft carrier capability lost in 1982 when HMAS Melbourne was decommissioned. In an editorial in the latest edition of its magazine The Navy, the league said there was an obvious linkage between the new landing ships, now under construction, and the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) version of the Lockheed F-35 JSF. It said acquisition of a dozen STOVL JSFs for use aboard the landing ships - known as LHDs (landing, helicopter, dock) - should be included in the upcoming defence White Paper. “Like it or not, the ADF's new amphibious capability will be used at some stage and when used will mean the situation is a serious one, requiring serious and decisive firepower,” it said. “However, without an airborne fire support capability, then all the LHDs can do is deliver our troops into the waiting gun sights of the enemy, in many respects just like at Gallipoli.” The Navy League said having between four and six STOVL aircraft, crewed by the RAAF, aboard each LHD could provide the tactical support needed to conduct amphibious operations around the region. The two new landing ships, based on a design by the Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, will each be able to transport up to 1,000 troops as well as helicopters, vehicles including tanks, and landing craft. Both feature a ski-ramp for use by jet aircraft but the former government persistently denied planning to resurrect an aircraft carrier capability. Australia is considering buying up to 100 JSF aircraft to meet future air combat needs. However, JSF is also being offered as a STOVL variant for the US Marines and Britain's Royal Navy and a carrier version for the US Navy. The first STOVL JSF conducted a successful conventional takeoff first flight last month but has yet to perform a vertical landing. Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon, speaking from aboard HMAS Anzac off Hawaii where he is observing the major Rimpac naval exercise, said all such issues had been canvassed in the air capability review. “That review will form part of the White Paper considerations and therefore the government will express any views on those topics when we release the White Paper,” he told AAP. - Agencies" The Gallipoli comparison is a bit far-fetched as we're likely to avoid opposed landings but its good to see someone keeping the debate alive and lobbying for fixed-wing naval aviation. They've even been diplomatic enough to suggest the RAAFies fly them. On a side note, I'm at home in Nowra for a few weeks. There's always been an approach path to Albatross over the house so I've had the opportunity to see a couple of low level flights of C-17s go over with the undercarriage down. I must say they look absolutely awesome! Cheers.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
gf0012-aust       7/12/2008 8:08:30 AM


ermmmmmmmmmm  ... this is a public tender notice
 


means stuff all. 
 
as Jim and I have said on other forums, show us the shipyards (and there are only a couple) that can show any  remote indication that a build is under consideration or that activity is underway demonstrating large vessel construction - and we'll show you colour and spin.
 
btw, he is in a position to have a better idea than most.
 
 
it's BS - and it makes the fan boys happy - but there is not one scintilla of information or any series of events that show it as anything more than internet vapourware.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/12/2008 8:13:06 AM
btw, there's a whole pile of other stuff that has to be in place to build a carrier - they don't have it.
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/12/2008 8:16:33 AM
just another small detail - the chinese don't send major capital acquisitions to public tender.
 
they tap preferred state owned or sanctioned builders.  they negotiate foreign military acquisitions through the State - not via the public press.
 
Kanwa is full of it.

 
Quote    Reply

Enterpriser       7/12/2008 8:47:57 AM




There is no reason that Navy pilots couldnt fly A F35B if it was aquired.




There have been plenty of guys in the past who have been offered jets, and there will be plenty more in the future, esp at the moment as there are more guys waiting around than the navy knows what to do with.

 





Yes there is.

 

1. RAN pilots are not trained in fixed wing aircraft operations, beyond the CT-4. 

 .....for now....... ;)

2. RAN does NOT have enough pilots to man these aircraft.

 are you kidding me.........(Top Gun anyone? - bring on the Ray Bands! see Number One)

3. RAN has no lead in fighter to train aircraft in fast jet operations and will have to use RAAF's limited assets to do so.

Tell that to the RAAF who control 6 RAN funded Hawks. And what about the RAN contracted LearJets that train No. 2 OCU .....
 

4. RAAF facilities will have to be used to train RAN pilots, unless you advocate duplicating these assets...


 You mean ADF facilities!  (Maintained by the RAAF - thankyou kindly :) )  

This argument is akin to arguing that RAN should be equipped with Abrams tanks, because, hey, Abrams tanks are going to be operating off LHD's...

There is a fundamental difference between merely "transported by" and "operating from". (CAS, Fleet Air Defence and Strike)
 

 

Brett.

 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       7/12/2008 6:50:59 PM
Thanks, GF.  I agree with your assessment.
 
Bluie, I'm not saying they don't want to, just that they haven't started welding steel yet.  I think you're right that they are in some stage of development, just not yet in construction.  However, since you are discussing buying aircraft that will be in service for 30+ years, of course it is wise to factor into your requirements the future threat environment and not just the current one, and thus include the idea that China will very likely build some carriers within that lifespan.  Sorry if I wasn't clear.
 
 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       7/13/2008 3:23:46 AM
DJ.....That was just FYI..... (For Your Info)   - x
- Almost no country puts capital ships.. out to public tender ( that is actually procuement news) -- the question is how reliable is the source.... ? as GF pointed out....
 
 
Even if they build em, we still probably have another decade or so, before they develop doctrine and tactics...yes? - Something to monitor...however....wouldn't you agree...?
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

south2       7/13/2008 6:53:38 AM




There is no reason that Navy pilots couldnt fly A F35B if it was aquired.




There have been plenty of guys in the past who have been offered jets, and there will be plenty more in the future, esp at the moment as there are more guys waiting around than the navy knows what to do with.

 





Yes there is.

 

1. RAN pilots are not trained in fixed wing aircraft operations, beyond the CT-4. 

 

2. RAN does NOT have enough pilots to man these aircraft.

 

3. RAN has no lead in fighter to train aircraft in fast jet operations and will have to use RAAF's limited assets to do so.


 

4. RAAF facilities will have to be used to train RAN pilots, unless you advocate duplicating these assets...


 

This argument is akin to arguing that RAN should be equipped with Abrams tanks, because, hey, Abrams tanks are going to be operating off LHD's...


 

 

 
Dude, I dont know where you are getting your information from...
1. Wrong, they go through 2FTS and are trained to the same minimum standard as RAAF pilots.
2. Massively wrong, there are plenty of Navy pilots doing nothing at the moment.
3&4 mostly Correct, However you are missing the point of my post.
 
1.  The RAAF struggles for fast jet pilots as is.
2.  The navy has spare pilots, many of who have the ability to fly fast jets.
 
Now at the same time, there have been precedents set in the past with Navy pilots transferring to the RAAF and flying fighters.

Hence: No reason why navy pilots couldnt fly the F35B if it was purchased. (As to administration, training and maintenance, well that is a different matter)
 


 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       7/13/2008 9:50:37 AM









There is no reason that Navy pilots couldnt fly A F35B if it was aquired.










There have been plenty of guys in the past who have been offered jets, and there will be plenty more in the future, esp at the moment as there are more guys waiting around than the navy knows what to do with.



 













Yes there is.



 



1. RAN pilots are not trained in fixed wing aircraft operations, beyond the CT-4. 



 .....for now....... ;)



2. RAN does NOT have enough pilots to man these aircraft.



 are you kidding me.........(Top Gun anyone? - bring on the Ray Bands! see Number One)



3. RAN has no lead in fighter to train aircraft in fast jet operations and will have to use RAAF's limited assets to do so.




Tell that to the RAAF who control 6 RAN funded Hawks. And what about the RAN contracted LearJets that train No. 2 OCU .....


 



4. RAAF facilities will have to be used to train RAN pilots, unless you advocate duplicating these assets...






 You mean ADF facilities!  (Maintained by the RAAF - thankyou kindly :) )  



This argument is akin to arguing that RAN should be equipped with Abrams tanks, because, hey, Abrams tanks are going to be operating off LHD's...




There is a fundamental difference between merely "transported by" and "operating from". (CAS, Fleet Air Defence and Strike)


Brett.

1. Top gun? We are talking about the Royal AUSTRALIAN Navy aren't we?
 
2.RAN contracts RAAF assets to provide training opportunities, ie: notional shooting at jets training. The Hawk Mk 127's are RAAF jets, funded by Government for RAAF use. Any spare capacity can be used for training other ADF units and this is what RAN AND Army make use of. This does NOT make them "RAN jets" however. You'll find RAN practice shooting at F-111's too. Do THESE belong to RAN on this basis then too? 16 AD Regt practices firing at RAAF jets too. How many of these RAAF jets are "Army" jets?
 
3. Why not say "Government facilities" and leave it at that? Fact is, each service receives funding to maintain capability. Fixed wing jet operations is NOT something RAN is funded to operate. As to the Lear Jet, it ain't even owned by ADF period. It's a civilian aircraft chartered for use by ADF units requiring EW training. I suppose next you'll be arguing that the chartered A-330 that does the bulk of the passenger runs for ADF to the Middle East at present belongs to Army, because they make the greatest use of it!
 
Regards
 
AD

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/13/2008 4:21:48 PM

I suppose next you'll be arguing that the chartered A-330 that does the bulk of the passenger runs for ADF to the Middle East at present belongs to Army, because they make the greatest use of it!


CISSO would probably like to try that on as a valid argument in getting more funds... :)
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    Serious hypothetical diversion here...   7/13/2008 8:43:49 PM
 
Not really! Abrams can only contribute to land forces operations and aims. They will merely be transported by the RAN. They cannot actually operate off the LHDs or contribute to RAN operations. Whereas F-35Bs could contribute to RAN operations such as providing air defence for a convoy or anti shipping strike. And they could end up being based on, operating from, and integral to, the LHD for a longer period of time.
 
Hypotheticly (and for fun as I know some here have no sense of imagination whatsoever), what sort of capability (if one at all) could one get from lining up several Abrams line a breast on the deck of the amphibs and using them as shore bombardment?
 
I'm thinking the equivalent of say a 16inch battleship broadside. Likewise, could one gain some out-of-the-square benefit if our heavy towed arty was used in same manner? I'm thinking some form of suppressing fire to a Soloman's/Fiji style op if we were targeting some evil doers up in the jungles.
 
Curious.
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics