>> I wish all the navy discussion had been in a thread so I could have read it all. <<

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

A Nimitz Class carrier would be a bit of overkill for protecting sea-lanes and commercial shipping. that is more your high end power projection and international policeman type stuff. Probably a small carrier with a few vertical take-off types would suit our role better. Though probably still out of our price range, and the bloody F-23 aircraft is still in development.

Ok, a smaller fleet, with a smaller carrier that can deal with shipping lane pirates.

At the risk of sounding like an ideas man, you could probably do that with a converted merchant ship carrying a load of medium to large armed helicopter drones. Unless the pirates decide to abandon speed boats and turn to helicopters themselves.

captain_spalding said:

As for ‘manoeuvres humans couldn’t take’:

The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (as the RAN Fleet Air Arm used to operate) has a maximum roll rate of 720 deg per second.

Yes, 720. Two complete rolls in one second. It can be done. You’re going to pop some rivets, probably overpressurise the wing tanks, and damage/deform the wing, but it can be done. The pilot comes out of it better than the machine. 360 deg in one second is tolerable to both man and aircraft.

The F/A-18 Super Hornet has a max roll rate of 120 deg per sec.

Some ex-RAN Skyhawks are still flying in the U.S. Theyre owned by a private firm, which contracts them to the US military to provide ‘enemy’ aircraft for training. Why? Because they’re bloody hard to shoot down.

One of the A-4 contract pilots was asked what aircraft he’d swap his Skyhawk for. His answer: an updated Skyhawk.

captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

Looks like they already exist

yes, lots of things you can buy off the shelve now

We need at least two, ideally three of these:

Garibaldi class light carriers.

Unfortunately, the RAAF has the machinery in Canberra to shout down any such ideas. They maintain that if it has fixed wings, it should be them operating it, and that they can adequately cover naval operations. They can’t, of course, but that’s a lesson that will only be (re)learnt the hard way.

You should have seen the campaign that the RAAF waged in Canberra to convince anyone they could buttonhole about how F-35s can’t operate from HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Canberra. No. Out of the question. Can’t be done. Simply not possible.

captain_spalding said:

Bubblecar said:

Should have ordered a batch of Supermarine Seafires, very reliable carrier plane.

They had their own quirks and problems.

captain_spalding said:

The ship in the pic is the Italian Navy’s ‘Giuseppe Garabaldi’. It operates McDonnell AV-8B Harriers.

The Spanish also operate AV-8Bs (they call them ‘Matadors’) from their ship, Juan Carlos 1. It’s the same design as HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Canberra.

The RAAF will talk your ear off about how impractical it would be to operate fixed wing aircraft from those ships.

A good thing they can’t speak Spanish.

captain_spalding said:

The ship in the pic is the Italian Navy’s ‘Giuseppe Garabaldi’. It operates McDonnell AV-8B Harriers.

The Spanish also operate AV-8Bs (they call them ‘Matadors’) from their ship, Juan Carlos 1. It’s the same design as HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Canberra.

The RAAF will talk your ear off about how impractical it would be to operate fixed wing aircraft from those ships.

A good thing they can’t speak Spanish.

mollwollfumble said:

Australia Navy. Oh, so this is what we have now.

captain_spalding said:

Unfortunately, the RAAF has the machinery in Canberra to shout down any such ideas. They maintain that if it has fixed wings, it should be them operating it, and that they can adequately cover naval operations. They can’t, of course, but that’s a lesson that will only be (re)learnt the hard way.

You should have seen the campaign that the RAAF waged in Canberra to convince anyone they could buttonhole about how F-35s can’t operate from HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Canberra. No. Out of the question. Can’t be done. Simply not possible.

c_s, I thought one of the reasons for institutiong ADFA as a tri-service training academy was to foster a more collegial understanding between the rival services. I wonder how this is actually working out? I have a niece who is currently there, I should probably give her a call and find out her views on the matter.

Of course she’s in the army, so has the upper hand in any arguement with the lesser services :)

Thank you for this thread.

Going back to basics, what does Australia need a defence force for? Australia is not like for instance Russia with 14 land-land neighbours, most of them hostile.

OK, let’s accept that Australia does need a defence force. Australia’s borders are, with the sole exception of the Torres Straight Islands, a very long way from the main land masses. That means that any defence force has to have an exceptionally long range, sustained high speed, widely distributed land bases, and be guided by satellite observations.

For longest ramge, nuclear power comes to mind. For high speed ships, capable of chasing down speedboats, catamaran hydroplanes come to mind.

Helicopters tend to be both slow and short range, but for Australia have the massive advantage of being to land anywhere other than the sea. Can we increase the speed, range and firepower (if needed) of helicopters? Helicopters also have the disadvantage of being noisy.

From WW2 we know that aircraft carriers are both necessary and vulnerable.

Another lesson from WW2 is that bombing of land targets is a total waste, it didn’t help Germany or England in Europe and it didn’t help the USA or Japan on pacific islands. It didn’t help the USA in Vietnam either.

For clandestine operations, submarines are the only option, so a seabed submarine detection system makes sense.

Home guard makes more sense than regular army. Australia has a lot of land to patrol.

Air force, I would have to know more about the range and capabilities of planes to make any comment there. Except to say that parachute troops are a must.

So to summarise: more ports, seabed and satellite detection systems, home guard, faster ships and beefed up helicopters, nuclear submarines, unsure about fixed wing aircraft but avoidance of bombers.

What about rough-ocean proof seaplanes? Do any exist?

All without upsetting the neighbours.

sibeen said:

I thought one of the reasons for institutiong ADFA as a tri-service training academy was to foster a more collegial understanding between the rival services.

Whatever gave you that idea?

ADFA is there to give you a chance to assess the calibre of people you’ll be dealing with throughout your career. They’ll be your contemporaries as you and they rise through the service over the years. You’ll be able to recall them, and say things like, ‘ah,yes, Bloggs – i remember him/her. Adequate sort of person, slow on the uptake, but dead keen once he/she grasps the concept and its benefits’.

General descriptions:

Army (the pongoes): Fairly bright, obviously quite professional in their outlook (they’re willing to sleep in ditches for the sake of the job, after all). Solid, dependable, if unable to understand anything that doesn’t involve rocks and trees.

Air Force (the penguins): Very nice people, generally. Thick as two short planks, most of them. Convinced that they’re superior because others who are convinced of their own superiority told them they are. Convinced also that they are the only defence Australia has. Most of them go on to become clerks or garage mechanics of some kind. A very, very few go on to learn the precursors for being airline pilots.

The Navy (the fish-heads): Smartest of the lot (take that as you will). Generally quite sociable (not many Gunnery Joes left these days), good listeners, if a bit devious. Will be tending to work more with the Army in the future, will (thankfully) not have to deal so much with the windbags of the RAAF. Best uniforms.

And which service were you in Captain?

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

Australia Navy. Oh, so this is what we have now.

You’d want them to be well defended by support vessels and aircraft as if sunk its probably carrying a significant percentage of our military equipment

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

Australia Navy. Oh, so this is what we have now.

You’d want them to be well defended by support vessels and aircraft as if sunk its probably carrying a significant percentage of our military equipment

The main purpose for this vessel is relief aid in emergencies or landing at Gallipoli.

Witty Rejoinder said:

And which service were you in Captain?

The Senior Service, but i never went to ADFA (for which much thanks).

captain_spalding said:

General descriptions:

The Navy (the fish-heads): Smartest of the lot (take that as you will). Generally quite sociable (not many Gunnery Joes left these days), good listeners, if a bit devious. Will be tending to work more with the Army in the future, will (thankfully) not have to deal so much with the windbags of the RAAF. Best uniforms.

And submariners? Another breed?

> The main purpose for this vessel is relief aid in emergencies or landing at Gallipoli.

That’s the only purpose of the entire defence force these days isn’t it?

Bubblecar said:

Interesting.

Shows HMS Alliance in the foreground. ‘Acheron’ class sub, WW2 design. Still survives as a museum ship, the only one of its class still existing.

HMS Aurochs, of the same class, was, i think, ‘loaned’ to Australia before we had our Oberon subs. Aurochs was the last British sub to mount a deck gun.

mollwollfumble said:

> The main purpose for this vessel is relief aid in emergencies or landing at Gallipoli.

That’s the only purpose of the entire defence force these days isn’t it?

As long as we are not at war, yes.

Submariners used to be ordinary types who volunteered for subs. Then, they were taken away, and something mysterious was done to them which altered them irretrievably. They used to be the equivalent of the strange relative who was kept in the attic. Very good at what they did, nonetheless.

Don’t know what they’re like these days.

‘Clive Palmer to bring back Palmer United Party for next federal election- – ABC News

Oh, just piss off, Clive.

Whoops, thought that was going into ‘chat’.

Australia relies on our Sea Lines of Communications (SLOC).

In this environment we really need to consider how to protect the SLOCs and for that we really do need to be in the power projection business.

We lost out carrier capability over 30 years ago, and it has taken nearly six years to bring ourselves to a standard where we are beginning to relearn. It will be a number of years before we would be capable of operating fixed wing aircraft again.

That being said, the LHD platform is capable of operating refurbished AV-8Bs very well.

We could operate the F-35B but not without some significant modification to the platform or having to accept very restrictive flight parameters.

I think you’ll see the FAA doing some significant things in the future.

Oh – I forgot to mention just how vital our submarine force is.

If you have a submarine force of eight subs and you – the opposition – only know where two are, that means that any seaborne force has to account for multiple submarines attacking them at any time…. even though those submarine may not be anywhere near where the opposing force is.

The simple fact of having a submarine force provides a threat to any potential foe.

Obviousman said:

I think you’ll see the FAA doing some significant things in the future.

The RAAF will have to grow up first.

At present, and for the last couple of decades, the RAAF has maintained that it, and it alone, has the right to operate fixed-wing aircraft.

Their most joyous day was when the FAA had to hand over their Macchi trainers to the RAAF. They were painting out the NAVY lettering almost before the aircraft had come to a complete stop.

They were terribly shocked when they lost control of battlefield helicopters to the Army, and have never really gotten over that. It made them pathologically defensive about their ‘domain’.

The RAAF’s greatest nightmare is a resurgent FAA. As i’ve said here before, they have previously and will again mount vigorous campaigns in Canberra to ear-bash anyone and everyone about how FWAs can’t possibly operate from the Navy’s LHDs.

When the RAAF can see the same writing on the wall that many other nations have seen since the 1980s, then the FAA might have a chance to do great things.

captain_spalding said:

Obviousman said:

I think you’ll see the FAA doing some significant things in the future.

The RAAF will have to grow up first.

At present, and for the last couple of decades, the RAAF has maintained that it, and it alone, has the right to operate fixed-wing aircraft.

Their most joyous day was when the FAA had to hand over their Macchi trainers to the RAAF. They were painting out the NAVY lettering almost before the aircraft had come to a complete stop.

They were terribly shocked when they lost control of battlefield helicopters to the Army, and have never really gotten over that. It made them pathologically defensive about their ‘domain’.

The RAAF’s greatest nightmare is a resurgent FAA. As i’ve said here before, they have previously and will again mount vigorous campaigns in Canberra to ear-bash anyone and everyone about how FWAs can’t possibly operate from the Navy’s LHDs.

When the RAAF can see the same writing on the wall that many other nations have seen since the 1980s, then the FAA might have a chance to do great things.

Maybe the RAAF can be distracted for a while with some new toys to play with?

party_pants said:

Maybe the RAAF can be distracted for a while with some new toys to play with?

Unfortunately, their toys are so expensive that there’s no money left to buy anything even vaguely similar for anyone else. In that way, it’s a good strategy to always insist on the latest and greatest, as it chews up all the money that’s possibly available, leaving no scope for alternative concepts.

captain_spalding said:

The RAAF’s greatest nightmare is a resurgent FAA. As i’ve said here before, they have previously and will again mount vigorous campaigns in Canberra to ear-bash anyone and everyone about how FWAs can’t possibly operate from the Navy’s LHDs.

When the RAAF can see the same writing on the wall that many other nations have seen since the 1980s, then the FAA might have a chance to do great things.

You are quite right….. but times can change.

What does FAA stand for?

Obviousman said:

captain_spalding said:

The RAAF’s greatest nightmare is a resurgent FAA. As i’ve said here before, they have previously and will again mount vigorous campaigns in Canberra to ear-bash anyone and everyone about how FWAs can’t possibly operate from the Navy’s LHDs.

When the RAAF can see the same writing on the wall that many other nations have seen since the 1980s, then the FAA might have a chance to do great things.

You are quite right….. but times can change.

We’ll need time for a new generation of RAAF leaders to rise through the ranks to where they can hopefully bring newer and more intelligent thinking to bear on policy.

That means it won’t happen any time soon.

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

Maybe the RAAF can be distracted for a while with some new toys to play with?

Unfortunately, their toys are so expensive that there’s no money left to buy anything even vaguely similar for anyone else. In that way, it’s a good strategy to always insist on the latest and greatest, as it chews up all the money that’s possibly available, leaving no scope for alternative concepts.

Perhaps if the RAAF has the chance to operate F-35Bs from a mobile platform? Perhaps they would then ask for additional purchases… and have the support of another service?

Witty Rejoinder said:

What does FAA stand for?

Fleet Air Arm

Witty Rejoinder said:

What does FAA stand for?

Fanny Adams Airways

Obviousman said:

Perhaps if the RAAF has the chance to operate F-35Bs from a mobile platform? Perhaps they would then ask for additional purchases… and have the support of another service?

The British tried that early on in the history of aircraft carriers. RN provided the ships, RAF provided planes and pilots. It was such a raging success that the Fleet Air Arm was created, and the services of the RAF dispensed with.

Didn’t work the. Not likely to work now.

Does the army still operate fixed wing stuff out of Oakey?

Obviousman said:

Australia relies on our Sea Lines of Communications (SLOC).

In this environment we really need to consider how to protect the SLOCs and for that we really do need to be in the power projection business.

We lost out carrier capability over 30 years ago, and it has taken nearly six years to bring ourselves to a standard where we are beginning to relearn. It will be a number of years before we would be capable of operating fixed wing aircraft again.

That being said, the LHD platform is capable of operating refurbished AV-8Bs very well.

We could operate the F-35B but not without some significant modification to the platform or having to accept very restrictive flight parameters.

I think you’ll see the FAA doing some significant things in the future.

On a serious note, doesn’t that power projection stuff mean going bigger with the carriers and adopting nuclear power?

captain_spalding said:

Obviousman said:

Perhaps if the RAAF has the chance to operate F-35Bs from a mobile platform? Perhaps they would then ask for additional purchases… and have the support of another service?

The British tried that early on in the history of aircraft carriers. RN provided the ships, RAF provided planes and pilots. It was such a raging success that the Fleet Air Arm was created, and the services of the RAF dispensed with.

Didn’t work the. Not likely to work now.

It seemed to work for the Brits until their budget was cut: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Force_Harrier

sibeen said:

Does the army still operate fixed wing stuff out of Oakey?

No fixed wing, only rotary.

sibeen said:

Does the army still operate fixed wing stuff out of Oakey?

They used to operate the Turbo-Porters out of there. I spent many a joyful (sic) day sitting in the co-pilots seat and doing laps around the Darling Downs.

sibeen said:

Does the army still operate fixed wing stuff out of Oakey?

No. Helicopters only. They have a Pilatus Porter in the museum there. That’s it.

As you’d know and expect, sibeen, we often see Tigers and MRH90s and the occasional Kiowa over Toowoomba.

party_pants said:

On a serious note, doesn’t that power projection stuff mean going bigger with the carriers and adopting nuclear power?

No. it means – in essence – being able to engage the opposition at a greater distance from your resources than would otherwise be available.

captain_spalding said:

sibeen said:

Does the army still operate fixed wing stuff out of Oakey?

No. Helicopters only. They have a Pilatus Porter in the museum there. That’s it.

As you’d know and expect, sibeen, we often see Tigers and MRH90s and the occasional Kiowa over Toowoomba.

Looking it up it appears that teh Army lost their last fixed wing assets, a whole three aircraft, to the RAAF in 2009.

sibeen said:

captain_spalding said:

sibeen said:

Does the army still operate fixed wing stuff out of Oakey?

No. Helicopters only. They have a Pilatus Porter in the museum there. That’s it.

As you’d know and expect, sibeen, we often see Tigers and MRH90s and the occasional Kiowa over Toowoomba.

Looking it up it appears that teh Army lost their last fixed wing assets, a whole three aircraft, to the RAAF in 2009.

‘If it’s fixed-wing, it’s ours’ – engraved on every RAAFie’s heart.

Obviousman said:

party_pants said:

On a serious note, doesn’t that power projection stuff mean going bigger with the carriers and adopting nuclear power?

No. it means – in essence – being able to engage the opposition at a greater distance from your resources than would otherwise be available.

It also means not having 100% of your aviation assets tied to big concrete runways, the precise locations of which are known to everyone in the world.

It also means you get better aviators. RAN flyers could and frequently did fly rings around RAAFies.

captain_spalding said:

It also means you get better aviators. RAN flyers could and frequently did fly rings around RAAFies.

I’m not going to comment on that.

captain_spalding said:

sibeen said:

captain_spalding said:

No. Helicopters only. They have a Pilatus Porter in the museum there. That’s it.

As you’d know and expect, sibeen, we often see Tigers and MRH90s and the occasional Kiowa over Toowoomba.

Looking it up it appears that teh Army lost their last fixed wing assets, a whole three aircraft, to the RAAF in 2009.

‘If it’s fixed-wing, it’s ours’ – engraved on every RAAFie’s heart.

Can I say, i my defense, I always hated them!

:)

I will admit that whenever I was in a tri-service situation the pussers and the pongoes seemed to gell well. The fly boys were generally shunned.

I once spent 8 weeks at the RAAF training base at Edinburugh. Early 80s, and working across the road at defence research labs. It was quite funny as the RAAF instructors wore ‘greens’ with a navy blue beret, and as I was in sigs I wore greens with a navy blue beret. I’d be walking down the road and it was like the sea was parting in front of me :)

Maybe we could just let every branch buy their own aircraft as they see fit and outsource all the piloting duties to Serco.

party_pants said:

Maybe we could just let every branch buy their own aircraft as they see fit and outsource all the piloting duties to Serco.

That’s already underway but not with Serco.

Obviousman said:

It seemed to work for the Brits until their budget was cut: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Force_Harrier

There were reasons why battlefield helicopters were taken away from the RAAF, and given to the Army.

Having RAAF aircraft and pilots aboard ships is quire likely to see those same reasons resurface in a different setting.

captain_spalding said:

Obviousman said:

It seemed to work for the Brits until their budget was cut: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Force_Harrier

There were reasons why battlefield helicopters were taken away from the RAAF, and given to the Army.

Having RAAF aircraft and pilots aboard ships is quire likely to see those same reasons resurface in a different setting.

The reason that the helos were given to the Army was because the Army would employ them.

If there was a situation with RAAF pilots flying RAAF aircraft aboard an RAN platform, I would imagine that the command structure would be such that the Navy directed the embarked forces.

Obviousman said:

Actually, I should clarify that. If there were RAAF aircraft aboard an RAN platform carrying out a Navy task then they would be under the command of the Navy.

To be honest, an embarked force might always operate that way. That is not to discount the occasion where Army or Air Force might direct the employment of embarked forces if specifically directed.

Obviousman said:

Obviousman said:

Actually, I should clarify that. If there were RAAF aircraft aboard an RAN platform carrying out a Navy task then they would be under the command of the Navy.

To be honest, an embarked force might always operate that way. That is not to discount the occasion where Army or Air Force might direct the employment of embarked forces if specifically directed.

And that’s the actual reasons why the Army was given the helicopters.

Overlapping and conflicting lines of command, control, and responsibility. Different doctrines, different priorities. What we see as important and urgent, against what you see as important and urgent. What you see as necessary risk against what we see as necessary risk. Who take orders from, under what circumstance i take orders from them, to what extent, and who i obey under another set of circumstances.

Utterly unnecessary, and resolved by removing the RAAF from the picture.

captain_spalding said:

Obviousman said:

party_pants said:

On a serious note, doesn’t that power projection stuff mean going bigger with the carriers and adopting nuclear power?

No. it means – in essence – being able to engage the opposition at a greater distance from your resources than would otherwise be available.

It also means not having 100% of your aviation assets tied to big concrete runways, the precise locations of which are known to everyone in the world.

It also means you get better aviators. RAN flyers could and frequently did fly rings around RAAFies.

Mind you, concrete runways are relatively cheap and easy to construct compared to aircraft carrying ships.

The US carriers though Navy have a Navy Air Arm and the Captain of a carrier is also a pilot, which I guess makes sense in what they are doing, ie that command from the pentagon joint chiefs would go direct to the Carrier Group. Marines have another arm, which makes sense as it operates in support of them.

Bubblecar said:

Very sloppy. Couldn’t they have lined up in numerical order?

Secure the Building!

In navy talk turn off power, close the doors,

In Marines talk, assault the building,

In Army talk, stop anyone getting in,

In Air Force talk, take out a lease with option to buy.

Bubblecar said:

Could at least got them into some sort of order.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

Very sloppy. Couldn’t they have lined up in numerical order?

The RAAF would have.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Could at least got them into some sort of order.

The lead would be the commander and maybe the rest are in seniority? No clue, just guessing. Things are usually done for a reason.

Bubblecar said:

I remember that day.

party_pants said:

Very sloppy. Couldn’t they have lined up in numerical order?

Just getting that number of aircraft in the air was a great achievement.

You can get a Russian plastic model kit of that helicopter in Australian anti-submarine service.

Obviousman said:

Bubblecar said:

I remember that day.

Were you flying on one them that day?

And a Matchbox one.

party_pants said:

Obviousman said:

Were you flying on one them that day?

No, I was grounded but I remember the occasion.

Obviousman said:

party_pants said:

Obviousman said:

Were you flying on one them that day?

No, I was grounded but I remember the occasion.

I remember the picture. Somewhere I got an ADF calendar as a teenager. Might have been in a showbag at a careers expo or something.

Any opinion on this? As a compromise that doesn’t require a big aircraft carrier. It folds up small on board ship.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey

Capacity 32 troops.
Has a very high cruising speed of 446 km/hr.
Range 1627 km, or 3590 km with extra internal fuel tanks.

mollwollfumble said:

Any opinion on this? As a compromise that doesn’t require a big aircraft carrier. It folds up small on board ship.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey

Capacity 32 troops.
Has a very high cruising speed of 446 km/hr.
Range 1627 km, or 3590 km with extra internal fuel tanks.

It’ll get there, has been some problems in transition lift and also if an engine fails huge torque reactions mean it crashes. Last I read software fixes and other refinements are making it easier to pilot and getting rid of some of the major maintenance issues.

mollwollfumble said:

Any opinion on this? As a compromise that doesn’t require a big aircraft carrier. It folds up small on board ship.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey

Capacity 32 troops.
Has a very high cruising speed of 446 km/hr.
Range 1627 km, or 3590 km with extra internal fuel tanks.

One of those projects that took lots of money and many years to complete. They were regarded as the world’s most unsafe aircraft at one stage after a few crashes. I guess people are waiting to see if they are any good.

Bubblecar said:

And a Matchbox one.

The earlier Mk31A. The ones in the photo were Mk31Bs; see just behind the main rotor head? On the A it just slopes down but on the B it sort of flattens out.

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

Any opinion on this? As a compromise that doesn’t require a big aircraft carrier. It folds up small on board ship.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey

Capacity 32 troops.
Has a very high cruising speed of 446 km/hr.
Range 1627 km, or 3590 km with extra internal fuel tanks.

One of those projects that took lots of money and many years to complete. They were regarded as the world’s most unsafe aircraft at one stage after a few crashes. I guess people are waiting to see if they are any good.

Yeah, they’ve had their issues but both crews and commanders swear by them; they love it.

It would be interesting but I don’t think it fits on the deck lifts of an LHD.

Obviousman said:

Yeah, they’ve had their issues but both crews and commanders swear by them; they love it.

It would be interesting but I don’t think it fits on the deck lifts of an LHD.

Maybe we should just sell them to Thailand or some other country that needs a flasher new royal yacht, and start again building a couple of new ones. This time big enough to take a few F-35B and Ospreys and stuff.

party_pants said:

Obviousman said:

Yeah, they’ve had their issues but both crews and commanders swear by them; they love it.

It would be interesting but I don’t think it fits on the deck lifts of an LHD.

Maybe we should just sell them to Thailand or some other country that needs a flasher new royal yacht, and start again building a couple of new ones. This time big enough to take a few F-35B and Ospreys and stuff.

But stadiums?!?

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Obviousman said:

Yeah, they’ve had their issues but both crews and commanders swear by them; they love it.

It would be interesting but I don’t think it fits on the deck lifts of an LHD.

Maybe we should just sell them to Thailand or some other country that needs a flasher new royal yacht, and start again building a couple of new ones. This time big enough to take a few F-35B and Ospreys and stuff.

But stadiums?!?

they tend to be a state irresponsibility

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

Any opinion on this? As a compromise that doesn’t require a big aircraft carrier. It folds up small on board ship.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey

Capacity 32 troops.
Has a very high cruising speed of 446 km/hr.
Range 1627 km, or 3590 km with extra internal fuel tanks.

One of those projects that took lots of money and many years to complete. They were regarded as the world’s most unsafe aircraft at one stage after a few crashes. I guess people are waiting to see if they are any good.

The F-111 was regarded as the world’s most unsafe aircraft at about the time that Australia bought them. Then Australia fixed then.

But noted, the Osprey is not necessarily safe.

Obviousman said:

Australia relies on our Sea Lines of Communications (SLOC).

In this environment we really need to consider how to protect the SLOCs and for that we really do need to be in the power projection business.

We lost out carrier capability over 30 years ago, and it has taken nearly six years to bring ourselves to a standard where we are beginning to relearn. It will be a number of years before we would be capable of operating fixed wing aircraft again.

That being said, the LHD platform is capable of operating refurbished AV-8Bs very well.

We could operate the F-35B but not without some significant modification to the platform or having to accept very restrictive flight parameters.

I think you’ll see the FAA doing some significant things in the future.

Someone asked why not the F-35B. Yes, we can accomodate them but for continued operations, the deck would need to be significantly strengthened (against the jet blast). The weight of that modification is prohibitive.

Obviousman said:

party_pants said:

Maybe we could just let every branch buy their own aircraft as they see fit and outsource all the piloting duties to Serco.

That’s already underway but not with Serco.

Was reminded of this thread when reading something today. Apparently there are a couple of private operators in the US with their own aircraft that do contracts for pilot training and air combat training. Seems like a fun business to be in if you’ve got a spare couple hundred mil.

party_pants said:

Apparently there are a couple of private operators in the US with their own aircraft that do contracts for pilot training and air combat training. Seems like a fun business to be in if you’ve got a spare couple hundred mil.

I did a day of that air combat training in California, including 6 ‘combat’ scenarios in real planes.

Best
Fun
Ever!

Rule 303 said:

party_pants said:

Apparently there are a couple of private operators in the US with their own aircraft that do contracts for pilot training and air combat training. Seems like a fun business to be in if you’ve got a spare couple hundred mil.

I did a day of that air combat training in California, including 6 ‘combat’ scenarios in real planes.

Best
Fun
Ever!

What sort of planes?

party_pants said:

Rule 303 said:

party_pants said:

Apparently there are a couple of private operators in the US with their own aircraft that do contracts for pilot training and air combat training. Seems like a fun business to be in if you’ve got a spare couple hundred mil.

I did a day of that air combat training in California, including 6 ‘combat’ scenarios in real planes.

Best
Fun
Ever!

What sort of planes?

Ex-Italian Air Force trainers. 290hp single engine prop. Airframe stiffened for acrobatics.

party_pants said:

Obviousman said:

party_pants said:

Maybe we could just let every branch buy their own aircraft as they see fit and outsource all the piloting duties to Serco.

That’s already underway but not with Serco.

Was reminded of this thread when reading something today. Apparently there are a couple of private operators in the US with their own aircraft that do contracts for pilot training and air combat training. Seems like a fun business to be in if you’ve got a spare couple hundred mil.

One of those operators has some ex-RAN Douglas Skyhawks in their inventory, and flies them to provide US forces with realistic ‘enemies’ for training.

party_pants said:

Obviousman said:

party_pants said:

Maybe we could just let every branch buy their own aircraft as they see fit and outsource all the piloting duties to Serco.

That’s already underway but not with Serco.

Was reminded of this thread when reading something today. Apparently there are a couple of private operators in the US with their own aircraft that do contracts for pilot training and air combat training. Seems like a fun business to be in if you’ve got a spare couple hundred mil.

One of those operators has some ex-RAN Douglas Skyhawks in their inventory, and flies them to provide US forces with realistic ‘enemies’ for training.

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

Obviousman said:

That’s already underway but not with Serco.

Was reminded of this thread when reading something today. Apparently there are a couple of private operators in the US with their own aircraft that do contracts for pilot training and air combat training. Seems like a fun business to be in if you’ve got a spare couple hundred mil.

One of those operators has some ex-RAN Douglas Skyhawks in their inventory, and flies them to provide US forces with realistic ‘enemies’ for training.

Are they ex-RAN via New Zealand?

This mob?

http://www.drakenintl.com

They’d got somewhere around 75 aircraft of various types.

Rule 303 said:

party_pants said:

Apparently there are a couple of private operators in the US with their own aircraft that do contracts for pilot training and air combat training. Seems like a fun business to be in if you’ve got a spare couple hundred mil.

I did a day of that air combat training in California, including 6 ‘combat’ scenarios in real planes.

Best
Fun
Ever!

I had several hours in the back seat of a FAA Macchi jet trainer, flown by a long-time friend.

That included several ‘exercises’ which were essentially dogfighting against other Macchis.

It was enormously exhilarating, once you got past the going from heavy positive g-forces (almost blacking out, having every organ in your body trying to move to your feet, being squeezed by the pressure suit) to high negative g-forces (being weightless, restrained by the seat harness, but with every particle of dust and grit from the cockpit floor (despite scrupulous cleaning) floating in front of you, getting other bits of your body squeezed), with the pilot shouting ‘where is he? where is he? Look for him, i need to know where he is!’, straining to look over your shoulder, trying to keep your breakfast down, trying to spot fast moving, distant specks while your own aircraft is doing any or all of several different types of gyration, with the horizon spinning this way, then that way….

It’s a great way to lose weight. I reckon i lost two or three kilos of sweat in every one of those sessions.

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

Was reminded of this thread when reading something today. Apparently there are a couple of private operators in the US with their own aircraft that do contracts for pilot training and air combat training. Seems like a fun business to be in if you’ve got a spare couple hundred mil.

One of those operators has some ex-RAN Douglas Skyhawks in their inventory, and flies them to provide US forces with realistic ‘enemies’ for training.

Are they ex-RAN via New Zealand?

This mob?

http://www.drakenintl.com

They’d got somewhere around 75 aircraft of various types.

That might be them.

party_pants said:

Obviousman said:

party_pants said:

Maybe we could just let every branch buy their own aircraft as they see fit and outsource all the piloting duties to Serco.

That’s already underway but not with Serco.

Was reminded of this thread when reading something today. Apparently there are a couple of private operators in the US with their own aircraft that do contracts for pilot training and air combat training. Seems like a fun business to be in if you’ve got a spare couple hundred mil.

Helicopters are still so limited though and expensive to run.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

Obviousman said:

That’s already underway but not with Serco.

Was reminded of this thread when reading something today. Apparently there are a couple of private operators in the US with their own aircraft that do contracts for pilot training and air combat training. Seems like a fun business to be in if you’ve got a spare couple hundred mil.

Helicopters are still so limited though and expensive to run.

I was surprised that the best they could come up with in a recent surveillance here was 300 odd plants.

Seems like that was a cost overrun.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

Was reminded of this thread when reading something today. Apparently there are a couple of private operators in the US with their own aircraft that do contracts for pilot training and air combat training. Seems like a fun business to be in if you’ve got a spare couple hundred mil.

Helicopters are still so limited though and expensive to run.

I was surprised that the best they could come up with in a recent surveillance here was 300 odd plants.

Seems like that was a cost overrun.

Turns out that the helicopter only showed up for propaganda. The cops knew who was growing what where.

roughbarked said:

Turns out that the helicopter only showed up for propaganda. The cops knew who was growing what where.

Ah, the ‘plausible-source’ ploy.

Blame the detection of the plants on the helicopter flight, to divert suspicion away from local informants.

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

Turns out that the helicopter only showed up for propaganda. The cops knew who was growing what where.

Ah, the ‘plausible-source’ ploy.

Blame the detection of the plants on the helicopter flight, to divert suspicion away from local informants.

Visible deterrent’s.

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

Turns out that the helicopter only showed up for propaganda. The cops knew who was growing what where.

Ah, the ‘plausible-source’ ploy.

Blame the detection of the plants on the helicopter flight, to divert suspicion away from local informants.

Visible deterrent’s.

How can I ever remove that apostrophe?

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

Turns out that the helicopter only showed up for propaganda. The cops knew who was growing what where.

Ah, the ‘plausible-source’ ploy.

Blame the detection of the plants on the helicopter flight, to divert suspicion away from local informants.

Visible deterrent’s.

That, too. Show that you’re serious, willing to bring the big toys into the game, hang the expense, etc.

roughbarked said:

Visible deterrent’s.

How can I ever remove that apostrophe?

With one of these:

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

Ah, the ‘plausible-source’ ploy.

Blame the detection of the plants on the helicopter flight, to divert suspicion away from local informants.

Visible deterrent’s.

That, too. Show that you’re serious, willing to bring the big toys into the game, hang the expense, etc.

It is also about that from on high they can get current and often incrimminating photos of the action that occurs. Remember that when the helicopters are there, the black attack vehicles are at the gate..

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

Visible deterrent’s.

That, too. Show that you’re serious, willing to bring the big toys into the game, hang the expense, etc.

It is also about that from on high they can get current and often incrimminating photos of the action that occurs. Remember that when the helicopters are there, the black attack vehicles are at the gate..

And one of these circling behind the ridge…

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

Visible deterrent’s.

That, too. Show that you’re serious, willing to bring the big toys into the game, hang the expense, etc.

It is also about that from on high they can get current and often incrimminating photos of the action that occurs. Remember that when the helicopters are there, the black attack vehicles are at the gate..

It really is a far cry from the news coverage I saw on my television of Robert Tribole(Aussie Bob), in his two tone piebald Italian leather footwear, shoving plants in the boot of a car and accompanied by certain dectectives, no doubt. All the while said plantsvwere apparently burning on a heap of pushed down peach trees.

i Dare someone to find this footage today.

> Visible deterrents.

Ain’t no such thing.

mollwollfumble said:

> Visible deterrents.

Ain’t no such thing.

Not while the money’s good.

mollwollfumble said:

> Visible deterrents.

Ain’t no such thing.

Doesn’t seem to work. No.