Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
This is a discussion on Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Q? just out of interest...how many A4,s were deployed on the Melbourne at any one time....only ever seen 5 on ...
Q? just out of interest...how many A4,s were deployed on the Melbourne at any one time....only ever seen 5 on the deck, but remember reading 8....could she handle more?
Q? just out of interest...how many A4,s were deployed on the Melbourne at any one time....only ever seen 5 on the deck, but remember reading 8....could she handle more?
IIRC it was 6 A4G's, 6 Trackers and 8 (?) sea kings. I guess you could swap the trackers for A4's if you needed more air support and less ASW so maybe 12, we did operate 20 odd A4G's.
Q? just out of interest...how many A4,s were deployed on the Melbourne at any one time....only ever seen 5 on the deck, but remember reading 8....could she handle more?
When the first 10 Skyhawks were acquired she deployed with 4, plus 6 Trackers and 10 Wessex as her standard air group. After the second batch of 10 were purchased she carried up to 8 Skyhawks. She had 8 Skyhawks, 4 Trackers, 5 Sea Kings and 2 Wessex on one of the occasions I visited her. She actually embarked 10 Skyhawks for one exercise and there was contingency planning for a maximum of 14. However, the failure to replace attrition losses in the A-4G fleet (a plan to acquire more was cancelled) meant that the number that could be embarked gradually shrank.
Tas
________________
Learn from the past. Prepare for the future
Last edited by Tasman; August 24th, 2007 at 03:49 AM.
Considering we're talking about the old carrier. I still find it unbelievable that we didn't replace/upgrade the HMAS Melbourne with a new carrier.
We selected the F/A-18 Hornet as our new future fighter 6 months before the HMAS Melbourne was put into the reserve. The first Hornets arrived the year the HMAS Melbourne was sold for scrap metal.
Alot of the old WW2 attack carriers like the HMAS Melbourne were converted to "amphibious assault ships". We should have converted her to fill that role but kept the capability to carry half a dozen Hornets.
Considering we're talking about the old carrier. I still find it unbelievable that we didn't replace/upgrade the HMAS Melbourne with a new carrier.
We selected the F/A-18 Hornet as our new future fighter 6 months before the HMAS Melbourne was put into the reserve. The first Hornets arrived the year the HMAS Melbourne was sold for scrap metal.
Alot of the old WW2 attack carriers like the HMAS Melbourne were converted to "amphibious assault ships". We should have converted her to fill that role but kept the capability to carry half a dozen Hornets.
The Hornet would have been far too heavy to operate from Melbourne. Because of its low speed (24 knots compared with the 30+ of the American Oriskany for example) and small flight deck, launching the A-4G pushed its catapult to the limit (and several Skyhawks into the ocean!). I think that the government of the day wanted to get rid of the carrier capability and the fixed wing FAA as fast as it could for political reasons!
Attached is a photo of the carrier with 8 Skyhawks on deck, along with 6 Trackers and 4 Wessex.
Tas
________________
Learn from the past. Prepare for the future
Last edited by Tasman; August 24th, 2007 at 07:56 PM.
Reason: additional comment
Considering we're talking about the old carrier. I still find it unbelievable that we didn't replace/upgrade the HMAS Melbourne with a new carrier.
We selected the F/A-18 Hornet as our new future fighter 6 months before the HMAS Melbourne was put into the reserve. The first Hornets arrived the year the HMAS Melbourne was sold for scrap metal.
Alot of the old WW2 attack carriers like the HMAS Melbourne were converted to "amphibious assault ships". We should have converted her to fill that role but kept the capability to carry half a dozen Hornets.
IIRC we had a deal being done to buy HMS Invincable and sear harrier but it fell through. The UK MOD put out a white paper (do they call it that over there too ?) in 80/81 i think, outlineing a NATO centric defence policy with the RN moving to an ASW role and sell of the carriers. HMS Invincable was all set to become HMAS Invincable but then the argentinians invaded the falklands and the rest is history.
IIRC we had a deal being done to buy HMS Invincable and sear harrier but it fell through. The UK MOD put out a white paper (do they call it that over there too ?) in 80/81 i think, outlineing a NATO centric defence policy with the RN moving to an ASW role and sell of the carriers. HMS Invincable was all set to become HMAS Invincable but then the argentinians invaded the falklands and the rest is history.
Invincible was to have become HMAS Australia. After the Falklands the government still planned a replacement carrier and considered a new build Invincible class plus a modified USN LPH design, amongst others, but, with the election of the Hawke government the carrier replacement program was scrapped, along with the fixed wing FAA. The RAAF, at the time, was adamant that it could provide all of the fixed wing support the fleet would need but in a very short time it demonstrated a reluctance to fly Hornets in the role and the government had to arrange for a NZ Skyhawk squadron (some of the aircraft were ex RAN A-4Gs) to operate out of Nowrah to fill the fleet support role. Today the RAAF uses the Hawk 127 plus leased civil aircraft in this role.
Perhaps the RAAF may yet be able to provide the navy with an even higher level of air combat support than that promised 25 years ago if it eventually gets F-35Bs and operates from the LHDs. Training pilots to fly FA-18Fs from USN carriers would be a good start.
Way I understand it there is little training value for Hornet and Pig flyboys in buzzing warships by flying missile profiles. Of course Navy being the senior service expect to get whatever they ask for, when they ask for it. RAAF hornets work with the Navy on a regular basis and provide work ups for ships deploying to the Gulf. Worst thing about working with the Navy is because they are stuck on there ships 24/7 they expect everyone else to be available at 0300. Not my favourite time of the day to be launching jets.
Anyway navy told the RAAF to stop the Pigs from doing supersonic runs on their ships because the ships were being damaged by the shockwaves. Some people you just can't please!! Anyone that has been buzzed by a low flying, supersonic F111 can tell you it is an experience that is not quickly forgotten. Tends to cause involuntary evacuation of the bowels, if you know what I mean. And brown on white is definetly not a good look!!
Way I understand it there is little training value for Hornet and Pig flyboys in buzzing warships by flying missile profiles. Of course Navy being the senior service expect to get whatever they ask for, when they ask for it. RAAF hornets work with the Navy on a regular basis and provide work ups for ships deploying to the Gulf. Worst thing about working with the Navy is because they are stuck on there ships 24/7 they expect everyone else to be available at 0300. Not my favourite time of the day to be launching jets.
I agree that the RAAF is certainly providing far better support for the navy in recent times than was the case immediately following the demise of the fixed wing FAA in the early 80's.
BTW, I know what you mean about being buzzed by a low flying jet that takes you by surprise. The RAAF used to be very good at this at the Hobart Regatta. With everyone watching the activities on the river the air force jets would come in from behind. People screamed and dropped their fairy floss at one regatta when an Avon Sabre snuck up on them and an F-111 had the same affect a few years ago - and they would have been flying at at least 500', rather than on the deck!
Invincible was to have become HMAS Australia. After the Falklands the government still planned a replacement carrier and considered a new build Invincible class plus a modified USN LPH design, amongst others, but, with the election of the Hawke government the carrier replacement program was scrapped, along with the fixed wing FAA.
And the money went into a new fleet of helos, the Seahawks and other goodies. Government funding now, compared to the 1980s, is in a completely different cricket oval. Australia's regular economy is quite strong and demand for our resources, thanks to the development of China and India, is through the roof. Spending 2% of GDP on defence gives us a lot more to play with. Some costs have gone up like the workforce which IMHO has a lot more to do with internal structural issues within the services rather than a buoyant civilian labour market. However funds remain for significant additional weaponry expenditure.
The 1970s concept of a ‘fleet carrier’ for sinking other navies’ ships or amphibious landing support carrier isn’t as important as expeditionary power projection. The ADF’s military might by 2020 within our region will be by far the most powerful: even in the Army where our 12 mechanised, networked (US FCS like) battlegroups will overawe the foot soldier brigades of others. It will also be en par with world leaders in combat power per soldier and have high demands for extra-regional deployments, to quell international trouble spots.
One limitation will be force projection. 2 LHDs, even good ones like the Juan Carlos I, are not enough. Getting our airpower into the combat zones will be limited by local basing issues. Providing the option of deploying a squadron onto a LHD – deploying less than 12 weapon systems isn’t really worth it and a LHD with 12 F-35Bs on it can’t do much else (so we need more LHDs) – will give extra flexibility. In effect additional LHD(s) that would enable one or more to be available to act as a mobile air base. Their below hangar garage decks would be loaded with stores to support the strike fighter force and their command centre a air ops centre.
The F-35 provides the ideal platform because of its highly capable offensive systems and the commonality between F-35A and F-35B. Workforce can go from one to the other, so their won’t be an isolated little community of STOVL only personnel as their would be in a single Harrier squadron and as there is now with Caribou. The idea of equipping Naval Aviation FEWG with STOVL fighters is dreaming. Duplication in these skills between two services is highly inefficient. Equipping a RAAF squadron with STOVL and carrier capability does make sense. Particular as for the RAAF the additional skills burden will be on the pilots. The way roles are broken down is all deck handling and ATC duties are conducted by the ship’s crew. Most of the LHD’s crew will be deck handlers to support Army helos, adding RAAF STOVL fighters to their job won’t be onerous. The squadron only deploys its aircrew, maintainers and ops personnel.
As for airman at sea I’ve been on Kitty Hawk and Blue Ridge with plenty of RAAF types and they fit right in. Maybe not joining in on the ‘three days at sea and its not gay’ thing of sailors, but that’s a damn good thing!
We were doing an ANZAC day parade in Katherine a few years ago that included a lone Hornet for a flypast. Well he screams in at tree top level, stands it on its arse and dissappears vertically to the heavens. As you say, kiddies screamed, horses bolted and a few of the locals headed for the hills. We were all standing there thinking that was pretty impressive but the result was absolute chaos. Unfortunately a girl was hurt when she was thrown from her horse but luckily not seriously. Needless to say, subsequent flyovers have been a bit more sedate.
During one of the F111 bomb camps at Tindal, as the pigs would return from a sortie they would buzz their OLA's and the 75 compound. It had become a competition among the aircrew to see who could push it the edge. Anyhow one bloke comes back at tree top level a little to fast, tries to slow down by extending his speed brake and only succeeds in creating a sonic boom right over the base. There was substantial damage to some buildings at 75 mainly with the false ceilings dropping and the light bulbs falling out of the sockets in the OLA's. One of the F111's was FODed when bulbs fell into areas were panels had been removed for maintenance. Very unhappy techos and a very embarressed pilot. Official excuse was the airspeed indicator was sticky and not indicating properly. All up I think damage totalled around the $200,000 mark.
My uncle was an F111 Nav back in the good old days, he told me about them damaging navy ships by doing low level supersonic runs over them. He also said they had to be carefull when doing runs down the coast as the shockwave from a supersonic pig at low level could destroy most civilian pleasure craft. Certainly a magnificent aircraft, be a sad day when they are retired from service.
The 1970s concept of a ‘fleet carrier’ for sinking other navies’ ships or amphibious landing support carrier isn’t as important as expeditionary power projection.
Agreed - given the role that has evolved for the ADF during the last decade or so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGRA
One limitation will be force projection. 2 LHDs, even good ones like the Juan Carlos I, are not enough. Getting our airpower into the combat zones will be limited by local basing issues. Providing the option of deploying a squadron onto a LHD – deploying less than 12 weapon systems isn’t really worth it and a LHD with 12 F-35Bs on it can’t do much else (so we need more LHDs) – will give extra flexibility. In effect additional LHD(s) that would enable one or more to be available to act as a mobile air base. Their below hangar garage decks would be loaded with stores to support the strike fighter force and their command centre a air ops centre.
Certainly you and others have made the point pretty strongly that the first two LHDs will need to concentrate on the amphibious role and not have it 'watered down' by taking up space with a handful of F-35Bs and their associated stores. It would seem that at least one more LHD would be needed to enable a reasonable number of F-35Bs to be deployed without adversely affecting our amphibious capability. The Juan Carlos I design seems to me to be a comparatively cheap vessel, for its size, both in construction costs and in manning, so the addition of a third vessel to be available when the fourth F-35 squadron reaches operational status does not seem to be out of the question from a budgetary or timescale point of view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGRA
The F-35 provides the ideal platform because of its highly capable offensive systems and the commonality between F-35A and F-35B. Workforce can go from one to the other, so their won’t be an isolated little community of STOVL only personnel as their would be in a single Harrier squadron and as there is now with Caribou. The idea of equipping Naval Aviation FEWG with STOVL fighters is dreaming. Duplication in these skills between two services is highly inefficient. Equipping a RAAF squadron with STOVL and carrier capability does make sense. Particular as for the RAAF the additional skills burden will be on the pilots. The way roles are broken down is all deck handling and ATC duties are conducted by the ship’s crew. Most of the LHD’s crew will be deck handlers to support Army helos, adding RAAF STOVL fighters to their job won’t be onerous. The squadron only deploys its aircrew, maintainers and ops personnel.
I think this is an excellent summary as to why any fixed wing combat aircraft deployed at sea by the ADF in future should be flown by the RAAF. You have convinced me and I have been a long time advocate for a return of the fixed wing FAA!
Invincible was to have become HMAS Australia. After the Falklands the government still planned a replacement carrier and considered a new build Invincible class plus a modified USN LPH design, amongst others, but, with the election of the Hawke government the carrier replacement program was scrapped, along with the fixed wing FAA. The RAAF, at the time, was adamant that it could provide all of the fixed wing support the fleet would need but in a very short time it demonstrated a reluctance to fly Hornets in the role and the government had to arrange for a NZ Skyhawk squadron (some of the aircraft were ex RAN A-4Gs) to operate out of Nowrah to fill the fleet support role. Today the RAAF uses the Hawk 127 plus leased civil aircraft in this role.
Perhaps the RAAF may yet be able to provide the navy with an even higher level of air combat support than that promised 25 years ago if it eventually gets F-35Bs and operates from the LHDs. Training pilots to fly FA-18Fs from USN carriers would be a good start.
Cheers
Thanks tassie i didnt know that, i just assumed the FAA and the notion of RAN flat tops went down with the General Belgrano! It seems we did lose a huge opportunity with that desision, an invincable class carrier would have given us unparralelled force projection power in our region, its something we've lacked for 20 years. However the canberras will change that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasman
Certainly you and others have made the point pretty strongly that the first two LHDs will need to concentrate on the amphibious role and not have it 'watered down' by taking up space with a handful of F-35Bs and their associated stores. It would seem that at least one more LHD would be needed to enable a reasonable number of F-35Bs to be deployed without adversely affecting our amphibious capability. The Juan Carlos I design seems to me to be a comparatively cheap vessel, for its size, both in construction costs and in manning, so the addition of a third vessel to be available when the fourth F-35 squadron reaches operational status does not seem to be out of the question from a budgetary or timescale point of view.
I think this is an excellent summary as to why any fixed wing combat aircraft deployed at sea by the ADF in future should be flown by the RAAF. You have convinced me and I have been a long time advocate for a return of the fixed wing FAA!
Tas
I have to slightly disagree with you on this one tassie. Given the the fact that the Canberra's are designed to deploy a rotary air wing in adition the battalion group there has to be significant space, weight, fuel stowage and births for their aircraft, aircrew, fuel and ordinace. Now i know an F35 has a significantly larger basing footprint and ordinance needs (in high intencity operations) than say an Tiger ARH, but given the fact that the vessel is designed to operate 6~10 rotary aircraft (correct me if i'm wrong on that one, there is 6 landing spots so that would seem to be the minimum) i dont understand why it cant operate with ~3 F35B's and a few Helo's without compromising the ammount of army personell it can accomidate, if a rotary air wing of 10 odd wouldn't. Between the two LHD's you've got 6 F35b's. Thats the same ammount of fast jets the melbourne would usually deploy with so i would need some convincing to for me to accept that 6 F35's wount be usefull, let alone invaluable.
Now given the flexability of VTOL/STOVL platforms there is no reason why rotary assets cant be transported on other vessels, even merchies, and transfered to the LHD's when needed. IIRC this is exactly what the pomies did during the falklands to great affect. Stores could be transfered in the same way. My point is the flexability of these vessels and the F35b will allow us huge reach beyond the practicle unbrella of mainland based RAAF, and even if F35's will compromise the amount of helo's deployed on the canberra's themselves, they can be deployed on otherhulls. Hell even the ordinance of the F35's can be taken by other vessels and transfered by helo when needed. It may not be perfect, but IMHO the value of fixed wing air support in the form of something as capable of an F35b is well woth the headaches involved.
As far as who should fly it, the RAAF is really the only choice. The F35b will be very usefull to the RAAF operating from land allowing huge basing flexability for CAS operations, not to mention the training, maintanance and personell overlapp headaches assosiated with the FAA operating the platform.
@ barra....
Have a look at this one, i'm not sure if it was supersonic, but it was close. Sounds like ther may have been a few brown trousers after that!
I have to slightly disagree with you on this one tassie. Given the the fact that the Canberra's are designed to deploy a rotary air wing in adition the battalion group there has to be significant space, weight, fuel stowage and births for their aircraft, aircrew, fuel and ordinace. Now i know an F35 has a significantly larger basing footprint and ordinance needs (in high intencity operations) than say an Tiger ARH, but given the fact that the vessel is designed to operate 6~10 rotary aircraft (correct me if i'm wrong on that one, there is 6 landing spots so that would seem to be the minimum) i dont understand why it cant operate with ~3 F35B's and a few Helo's without compromising the ammount of army personell it can accomidate, if a rotary air wing of 10 odd wouldn't. Between the two LHD's you've got 6 F35b's. Thats the same ammount of fast jets the melbourne would usually deploy with so i would need some convincing to for me to accept that 6 F35's wount be usefull, let alone invaluable.
Now given the flexability of VTOL/STOVL platforms there is no reason why rotary assets cant be transported on other vessels, even merchies, and transfered to the LHD's when needed. IIRC this is exactly what the pomies did during the falklands to great affect. Stores could be transfered in the same way. My point is the flexability of these vessels and the F35b will allow us huge reach beyond the practicle unbrella of mainland based RAAF, and even if F35's will compromise the amount of helo's deployed on the canberra's themselves, they can be deployed on otherhulls. Hell even the ordinance of the F35's can be taken by other vessels and transfered by helo when needed. It may not be perfect, but IMHO the value of fixed wing air support in the form of something as capable of an F35b is well woth the headaches involved.
What I actually meant to say in reply to AGRA was that he and others made a strong point about it reducing the capacity of the LHDs to perform their primary mission (and the reason they have been purchased) if F-35Bs take up space at the expense of trooplift helos and other equipment. I have to concede that this is a valid argument
Personally, however, I am not totally convinced that a small detachment could not be deployed on one LHD, whilst still enabling a strong mechanised battlegroup and its helicopters to be spread between the two. I guess we will have to wait and see what sort of combinations of helos, landing craft, armoured vehicles, troops and other equipment the navy will be able to embark in the Canberras. No doubt there will be a lot of modelling of various options over the next few years. Perhaps that modelling will demonstrate that it will be possible to include VSTOL aircraft with the embarked force.
Whatever the outcome, however, I strongly support the purchase of a third vessel which would ensure that a full squadron of F-35Bs could be deployed without reducing the ADF's amphibious capability. I envisage that a third ship would act in an aviation enhanced role in a similar way to the new USN LHA(R)s. It could operate 12 F-35Bs plus S-70B Seahawks and perhaps AEW versions of the MRH-90, whilst still embarking a reduced number of troops and equipment. This would free the other two LHDs to concentrate on the amphibious role.
Another possibility would be for a squadron of F-35Bs to deploy from a USN LHD, in the same way that we have discussed the FA-18Fs deploying from a USN carrier. In the absence of forward airbases RAAF F-35Bs could also use the LHDs as floating bases after they have landed their troops. The USN has used LHDs and LPHs as aviation support ships (Harrier carriers) and mine countermeasures vessels (with M/S helos embarked) as well as operating them in their primary amphibious role. The LHD that the RAN is getting is a very flexible design. Two ships will be good whilst a third, along with an RAAF squadron of F-35Bs, would better enable the ADF to take full advantage of the wide range of capabilities that they can offer.
Nice video BTW Ozzy!
Tas
________________
Learn from the past. Prepare for the future
Last edited by Tasman; August 25th, 2007 at 09:07 AM.
) in 80/81 i think, outlineing a NATO centric defence policy with the RN moving to an ASW role and sell of the carriers. HMS Invincable was all set to become HMAS Invincable but then the argentinians invaded the falklands and the rest is history.
