This is a discussion on Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by gf0012-aust
I don't see that as a huge stumbling block. As it is the proposals have been ...
I don't see that as a huge stumbling block. As it is the proposals have been along the lines of the RN/RAF re-org where RAF fixed wing pilots take over fixed wing fleet air arm roles and are deployed on the RN assets.
One of the major problems suffered by the old FAA was that Australia could just not afford two airforces. I think most people outside of the RAAF would agree that there was a certain amount of 'whiteanting' of the FAA by the air force which felt funds it should be getting were going to the navy. The proposal you mention seems to be a really good compromise which would make the most economical use of funds and manpower.
I don't see that as a huge stumbling block. As it is the proposals have been along the lines of the RN/RAF re-org where RAF fixed wing pilots take over fixed wing fleet air arm roles and are deployed on the RN assets.
Just wondering, is the cost vs reward really worth this? I mean you are getting a far less capable aircraft in B in terms of flight performance and range while paying far more (I remember reading figures of 80 million vs 130 million posted by M21Sniper a while back). How much extra is it to operate both A and B? I mean for UK, since they are ordering a lot.
Just wondering, is the cost vs reward really worth this? I mean you are getting a far less capable aircraft in B in terms of flight performance and range while paying far more (I remember reading figures of 80 million vs 130 million posted by M21Sniper a while back). How much extra is it to operate both A and B? I mean for UK, since they are ordering a lot.
apparently the poms think its worthwhile. emotionally it would be a bit difficult for the FAA guys to see RAF overalls on RN ships...
as for the RAN, I think its a pipe dream unfortunately
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
If the F-35B turns out to be a bit of a dud or expensive, then no problems, we buy the F-35A's, and use our LHD are designed, for amphibious assults, with NH-90's, tigers, chooks, tanks, landing craft, troops, vechicals etc. No loss of face, no wasted money, we have the best LHD we could get.
If the F-35B turns out to be a fantastic plane, at only a few mill more (some estimates have put it only ~10 million more) then it may indeed be worthwhile. We have a LHD that is capable. I think it will be borderline viable for Australia it really depends whos in charge and who wants it.
Other than that there may be UCAV's that can fly from the LHD as well, its not just the F-35.
The BPE is a rather clever design. Being its so cheap, and so capable. I think as a single roll carrier it would perform at least as good as a Invincible class carrier. But its so cheap at around $300 million. You can by three for the price of one Cavour ship.
If F-35B is highly desireable, and the LHD struggle with it, or are overused as a LHD to dedicate to carrier functions, no problems. Australia could start a carrier preposal. After all by then we would have aircraft, escorts etc, it would just be the addition of a single vessel. That would get messy, but it is in the vauge relm of possibility if circumstances change. UK fails to get carriers, US scales back carrier force, extreme instability in the region (resource crisis?), regional arms race etc etc.
I would love to see a specialised carrier, maybe 38,000 tons. 35 aircraft. 25+ kt speed, capable of CATOBAR.
Just wondering, is the cost vs reward really worth this? I mean you are getting a far less capable aircraft in B in terms of flight performance and range while paying far more (I remember reading figures of 80 million vs 130 million posted by M21Sniper a while back). How much extra is it to operate both A and B? I mean for UK, since they are ordering a lot.
The UK does not plan to buy any F-35A. Only F-35B.
The official estimate is that the F-35B will cost about the same as the F-35C, maybe 25% more than the F-35A. The 31-Dec-2005 SAR estimated "flyaway" price in 2006 USD at $52.8 mn for F-35A, $67.4 mn for F-35B (adjusted by me from the 2002 prices given, using the US budget office figure for inflation) for full-rate production, i.e. from 2014 onwards. Your guess is as good as mine whether they can achieve that (I doubt it), & the contract price will be much higher, of course. Pre-2014 so called LRIP production is forecast to be more expensive.
... emotionally it would be a bit difficult for the FAA guys to see RAF overalls on RN ships... ...
But that's exactly what happens now, & has for the last 25 years. We had RAF Harriers operating off Invincible & Hermes in the Falklands war to provide the ground attack capabilities the SHARS lacked, & now there's a joint Harrier force, with both FAA & RAF operating the same aircraft, & RAF crews operating on ships when required.
But that's exactly what happens now, & has for the last 25 years. We had RAF Harriers operating off Invincible & Hermes in the Falklands war to provide the ground attack capabilities the SHARS lacked, & now there's a joint Harrier force, with both FAA & RAF operating the same aircraft, & RAF crews operating on ships when required.
I think the Navy's got used to crabs on deck.
The same discussion is going on in Italy since the Air Force wants F35As but just about everybody else pushes for F35Bs for both Air Force and Navy in order to have higher standardization and more jets compatible with our 2 light aircraft carriers.
Apparently the F35As cost less and carry a larger weapons load, but I'd like to see the accurate numbers because it all sounds like the good old parochial debate between competing armed forces.
The Army at least is cooperating and routinely deploys Mangusta attack helos on our carriers and LPDs.
HMAS Arunta visited Hobart today and I noticed that it has now been fiited with launching mounts for Harpoon missiles, although no canisters were fitted to the mounts (not unusual for ships visiting the Southern capital).
This means that at least three Anzacs are fitted for Harpoon; Arunta, Anzac and Warrumunga.
Cheers
PS: I'll download a couple of pics that I took from my boat this afternoon.
HMAS Arunta visited Hobart today and I noticed that it has now been fiited with launching mounts for Harpoon missiles, although no canisters were fitted to the mounts (not unusual for ships visiting the Southern capital).
This means that at least three Anzacs are fitted for Harpoon; Arunta, Anzac and Warrumunga.
Cheers
PS: I'll download a couple of pics that I took from my boat this afternoon.
Did you notice if there were any flat-panel radar arrays on HMAS Arunta? I'm wondering what the CEA-FAR system looks like aboard an Anzac, and the Arunta was/is the test ship for that.
Can't wait to see the pics.
-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Did you notice if there were any flat-panel radar arrays on HMAS Arunta? I'm wondering what the CEA-FAR system looks like aboard an Anzac, and the Arunta was/is the test ship for that.
Can't wait to see the pics.
-Cheers
The arrays seem to have been removed. There is a set of photos of Arunta on the ADF website which shows the trial arrays. See link below:
HMAS Arunta visited Hobart today and I noticed that it has now been fiited with launching mounts for Harpoon missiles, although no canisters were fitted to the mounts (not unusual for ships visiting the Southern capital).
This means that at least three Anzacs are fitted for Harpoon; Arunta, Anzac and Warrumunga.
Cheers
PS: I'll download a couple of pics that I took from my boat this afternoon.
There wasn't any USMC operators in the area I trust???
No armed sentries and not a police RHIB in sight! I put a fishing line over the side to look innocent just in case!
Actually my tin dinghy would have looked pretty insignificant compared with a couple of the other boats that you can see in the photos I downloaded!
Cheers
Looks like a "lovely day" for a spin on the water...
Anyhoo getting back on topic, it's good to see the Harpoon fitment finally proceeding, it's taken long enough.
December 04 the first tubes went on Warramunga.
Now I want to know from the Puss or AMPTE if they're around at all, are the tubes and missiles kept on board, but just not on the "stands" all the time, or are they kept completely off the boat and fitted when required for ex's or operations?
The exact load out policy is classified (and a complete load of garbage if you ask me). As for Harpoon, I'm pretty sure that if they ain't visible then they haven't got any onboard. I don't think they can load them anywhere execpt alongside.
The exact load out policy is classified (and a complete load of garbage if you ask me). As for Harpoon, I'm pretty sure that if they ain't visible then they haven't got any onboard. I don't think they can load them anywhere execpt alongside.
Even in exercises the canisters are not always fitted. Warrumunga carried none during Exercise Ocean Protector last year and shortly afterwards was fitted with just two when she was deployed as part of the Commonwealth Games security force. She also had just two when she was in Hobart last year but was fully outfitted with eight when she deployed to the Gulf later in the year.
I wonder if there are sufficient missiles in the RAN's inventory or if this is another example (CIWS and Mini Typhoon are others) of shortages resulting in weapons being rotated to deploying units at the expense of others. It makes you worry about what is actually in the Mk 41 VLS. ESSM or empty cells?
Cheers
Last edited by Tasman; April 5th, 2007 at 07:13 PM.
emotionally it would be a bit difficult for the FAA guys to see RAF overalls on RN ships... 
