RAAF CAF slams 'his' Air Force!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the way he said he has flown a 4th gen jet against a 5th gen jet 
and then pointed out that no one the pollie quotes has done that
and then pointed out that no one the pollie quotes has done that
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but where's the money and are they worth it?"
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I found Senator Ludlum's questions in the video to mostly be a bit irritating and of course biased towards a Green agenda, he does not need to be a fighter pilot to make it reasonable for him to question the decision to buy the JSF in detail, and I doubt AM Brown thinks so. Ludlum went too far.
It is and should be his duty to hold the public service (and the services) to be accountable.
There have been a number of unfortunate procurement decisions over the years (Australia is not alone in this, and it is to some degree inherent in balancing the conundrum of buying cutting edge vs proven but somewhat down the path towards obsolescence). Lessons appear to have been learned towards not specifying uniquely tailored to Australia variants.
I just wish a senator or someone would have done so when defence ordered the LCM2000, or the SH-2G(A), MRH-90, Tiger ARH, etc.
I, for what it's worth accept the JSF is an appropriate acquisition for the RAAF, if the experts after questioning, maintain that it is.
It is and should be his duty to hold the public service (and the services) to be accountable.
There have been a number of unfortunate procurement decisions over the years (Australia is not alone in this, and it is to some degree inherent in balancing the conundrum of buying cutting edge vs proven but somewhat down the path towards obsolescence). Lessons appear to have been learned towards not specifying uniquely tailored to Australia variants.
I just wish a senator or someone would have done so when defence ordered the LCM2000, or the SH-2G(A), MRH-90, Tiger ARH, etc.
I, for what it's worth accept the JSF is an appropriate acquisition for the RAAF, if the experts after questioning, maintain that it is.
Last edited by rjtjrt; 3rd Jun 2014 at 05:56. Reason: More thoughts
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Some SOBRE advice from the Gents re F-35Bs on LHDs....
Jump jets on navy's agenda as Tony Abbott orders air strike rethink 03 Jun 2014 David Wroe
Jump jets on navy's agenda as Tony Abbott orders air strike rethink
Jump jets on navy's agenda as Tony Abbott orders air strike rethink 03 Jun 2014 David Wroe
"Prime Minister Tony Abbott's order to examine turning the navy's amphibious assault ships into aircraft carriers for jump jets will require a major rethink by Defence, top military brass have indicated.
Facing a Senate hearing on Monday, Defence chiefs said little work had so far been done on the possibility of buying a short take-off and vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter - an idea that has seized the interest of the Prime Minister.
Under questioning by Labor defence spokesman Stephen Conroy, defence chiefs confirmed for the first time that Mr Abbott had asked them to look at the merit of buying the F-35B jump jets under the forthcoming Defence White Paper and accompanying Force Structure Review.
Under the proposal, they would be flown from the navy's two Landing Helicopter Dock amphibious assault ships, which are due to come into service over the next 12 to 18 months.
Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown said the force had not asked for the F-35B but added the idea should be examined along with all other credible options.
"Like all things when you have a new White Paper, you should always examine all sorts of options ... It wasn't something the air force has particularly pushed," he said.
He said significant changes would be needed for the LHD ships to accommodate up to 12 of the fighters.
"One of the big issues with having fixed-wing aeroplanes come back onto a ship is you've actually got to get them back in poor weather, so there would be new radars required on the ship as well as instrument landing systems, so there'd be some extensive modifications around that."
Chief of Navy, Vice-Admiral Ray Griggs, said further modifications to the ship would include making the deck heat resistant, and changes to fuel storage and fuel lines, weapons magazines and classified compartments for storage.
"This has been a fairly superficial examination up until now because there hasn't been a serious consideration of this capability going into the ship."
Chief of the Defence Force, General David Hurley, said it was too early even to say how the F-35B would fit into the Australian Defence Force.
Much work was needed to decide even how useful they would be, how much they would cost and what sacrifices would be needed to buy them.
"I think we're in a situation where a new government has come in, there's a White Paper been evolving for a while ... The Prime Minister has ... a view about a capability he ... thinks might be relevant to the ADF. He's asked us to look at that.
"We have a process in place at the moment that will allow us to have a look at that and depending on where we come out on that process, we would then go into all those technical decisions about nature of ship and force structure implications for the ADF."
Facing a Senate hearing on Monday, Defence chiefs said little work had so far been done on the possibility of buying a short take-off and vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter - an idea that has seized the interest of the Prime Minister.
Under questioning by Labor defence spokesman Stephen Conroy, defence chiefs confirmed for the first time that Mr Abbott had asked them to look at the merit of buying the F-35B jump jets under the forthcoming Defence White Paper and accompanying Force Structure Review.
Under the proposal, they would be flown from the navy's two Landing Helicopter Dock amphibious assault ships, which are due to come into service over the next 12 to 18 months.
Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown said the force had not asked for the F-35B but added the idea should be examined along with all other credible options.
"Like all things when you have a new White Paper, you should always examine all sorts of options ... It wasn't something the air force has particularly pushed," he said.
He said significant changes would be needed for the LHD ships to accommodate up to 12 of the fighters.
"One of the big issues with having fixed-wing aeroplanes come back onto a ship is you've actually got to get them back in poor weather, so there would be new radars required on the ship as well as instrument landing systems, so there'd be some extensive modifications around that."
Chief of Navy, Vice-Admiral Ray Griggs, said further modifications to the ship would include making the deck heat resistant, and changes to fuel storage and fuel lines, weapons magazines and classified compartments for storage.
"This has been a fairly superficial examination up until now because there hasn't been a serious consideration of this capability going into the ship."
Chief of the Defence Force, General David Hurley, said it was too early even to say how the F-35B would fit into the Australian Defence Force.
Much work was needed to decide even how useful they would be, how much they would cost and what sacrifices would be needed to buy them.
"I think we're in a situation where a new government has come in, there's a White Paper been evolving for a while ... The Prime Minister has ... a view about a capability he ... thinks might be relevant to the ADF. He's asked us to look at that.
"We have a process in place at the moment that will allow us to have a look at that and depending on where we come out on that process, we would then go into all those technical decisions about nature of ship and force structure implications for the ADF."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 3rd Jun 2014 at 07:34. Reason: qut
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Marshal Brown said getting something done in Defence was like dealing with a bucket of corks
There are 56,000 men and women in the Australian Defence Force and a further 25,000 in the reserves. They are supported by about 20,600 public servants.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
'rh200': There is a hoary old story about 'which' and 'what' (repeated on request) but anyway I do not know what/which "flight simulator god" you have in mind however it is quite possible I learnt to fly (with the RAAF initially) with one of dem potential which/whats. 
Frick that was a long time ago now Chief.
Frick that was a long time ago now Chief.
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 4th Jun 2014 at 02:35. Reason: rh200
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Brownie stars again.... The first five minutes or so are questions from Sen. Xenephon and then the one hour with GREEN Senator is repeated. If youse have seen that already then drag the bar to One Hour and Five minutes when the old DefMin asks AM Brown questions for five minutes. At the end AM Brown says a recent exercise with Oz Shornets against USAF F-16 Aggressor Squadron (I'll look it up) had a KILL ratio in favour of the Supers at 20:1 GO RAAFie CHAPPies! :-)
F-16s appear in airspace at Amberley Peter Foley | 6th Mar 2014
http://www.qt.com.au/news/f-16s-appe...erley/2189860/
Foreign Affairs Defence & Trade JSF 2 June 2014
Published on Jun 3, 2014 Senator Nick Xenophon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu8G5ABHKc8
F-16s appear in airspace at Amberley Peter Foley | 6th Mar 2014
http://www.qt.com.au/news/f-16s-appe...erley/2189860/
Foreign Affairs Defence & Trade JSF 2 June 2014
Published on Jun 3, 2014 Senator Nick Xenophon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu8G5ABHKc8
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 5th Jun 2014 at 00:26. Reason: adstf
Spaz
Not raining on your parade but what were the Aggressors simulating? Block 15 F16's out of Iswahyudi? What did our guys have? AMRAAM & Wedgetail? From what I watched, AVM Brown was cleverly disingenuous in parts.
He does come across as a capable leader and the RAAF seems to be being molded into an even more highly capable air force.
I appreciate the RAAF's influence of late, as what appeared to be the acceptance of a capability gap previously in a total and premature commitment to JSF was quite a risk. I recall numerous interviews with AVM's ( Shepherd etc ) where the need for an interim fighter and eventually Growler were totally dismissed. Wasn't it an actual civilian push to address the JSF delays and capability gap? So smart questioning of Defence an essential check and balance and I have no problems with the Senators doing their job.
Wow! Jump jets for the RAAF to serve on navy carriers? Smart if it's an mature technology purchase I guess, but who are we fighting and would cruise missiles on AWD's and LHD based attack helicopters not suffice in the region?
Not raining on your parade but what were the Aggressors simulating? Block 15 F16's out of Iswahyudi? What did our guys have? AMRAAM & Wedgetail? From what I watched, AVM Brown was cleverly disingenuous in parts.
He does come across as a capable leader and the RAAF seems to be being molded into an even more highly capable air force.
I appreciate the RAAF's influence of late, as what appeared to be the acceptance of a capability gap previously in a total and premature commitment to JSF was quite a risk. I recall numerous interviews with AVM's ( Shepherd etc ) where the need for an interim fighter and eventually Growler were totally dismissed. Wasn't it an actual civilian push to address the JSF delays and capability gap? So smart questioning of Defence an essential check and balance and I have no problems with the Senators doing their job.
Wow! Jump jets for the RAAF to serve on navy carriers? Smart if it's an mature technology purchase I guess, but who are we fighting and would cruise missiles on AWD's and LHD based attack helicopters not suffice in the region?
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 5th Jun 2014 at 02:59.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
You can be how you wish - my parade is a long way from your rain. Which is a good thing. All I know is what is in the video and what is in the newspaper report. Did you read that?
The Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs has been in the drawer since the beginning. For sure the ADF needs to get onboard with it. I'm not going to whinge about the past. It is very interesting to me that a concept of having a 'poor man fleet defence', particularly to help defend the 'valuable asset' LHD or two, with a small group of F-35Bs during transit of open ocean, or around archipelagos for example, is a good one. Back in 1971-72 I was part of the small VF-805 Squadron onboard HMAS Melbourne (then a specialised ASW carrier with Wessex 31Bs and S2Es) for the purpose described. The Oz precedent is there. With the extra capability for networking that will be present in this new environment, the synergy for the ship and air assets is not bad.
Then the BLEEDin' Moaning RAAF CRABS can f off ashore when they are no longer needed. And we ain't talking about storming the beaches. The Bees are onboard for a short time as described then off to join up with their RAAF support maties ashore.
For sure plans change. First there was going to be only a 100 strong F-35A force. Then 2 doz Supers came along - then a doz Growlers - now there may be some Bees to mix it up again.
If you know anything about RAN history then you will recall that back in the early 1960s the RAN was going to scrap fixed wing by the mid 1960s to have a helo only ASW HMAS Melbourne. Then 'konfrontasi' emerged and minds were changed to 'back to the future' with the mix of aircraft described above, by 1969 (after a lengthy refit for MELBOURNE to cope with the new aircraft). Initially there were only ten Skyhawks with only 8 A4Gs available to be used as described. Later that same mix was doubled for more flexibility and mission changes onboard.
Some F-35Bs onboard are way better than NO F-35Bs onboard our LHDs, as required. And that is stressed again - when required. Mostly they will be ashore in crabland. So the crabs need to know what to do with them. I guess hop skipping and jumping around up north would be one answer. But I do not care about that. Not up to me chief.
______________________________
This is the closest to my idea (and probably goes beyond what I had in mind as stated above) best to read the two part of the article in total, the excerpt is just for the fleet defence concept above, so to speak, and again I stress - not for storming a defended beach as such - not sure if this thread has the 'valuable asset' description of the LHD (for Spain).
F-35B JSF for the ADF—a viable option in the 2015 White Paper? (Part 2) 30 May 2014 Malcolm Davis
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/f-3...-paper-part-2/
_________________
Description from Navantia PDF brochure at location below.
"...The ship has been conceived as a “protected unit” in the sense that her defence is charged specifically to other units that may be submarine, surface or airborne and is in all cases a “valuable unit” because of its nature and the cargo she carries on board. For this reason the weapons on board are limited to four 20 mm cannons that provide moderate close-in self defence. She has a reserve of space and weight so that self-defence weapons may be integrated in a later phase: MK-38 assemblies (automatic system with remote control from the CIC) for asymmetric defence and 2 SEA RAM assemblies for anti-missile defence.
On a Command and Control level, the ship should integrate all the domestic and NATO systems in a wide set of classified networks that confer the capability to act as command ship at brigade level in amphibious operations and even as the naval HQ HRF command ship...."
This URL keeps breaking so here it is in full for copy/paste without the leading 'h': {so add it for working}
ttp://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfiles/files/sala_pr/folleto%20LHD_marzo_para%20navantia_ingles.pdf (2.3Mb)
This one may work or it may be broken:
http://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/user...tia_ingles.pdf
The Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs has been in the drawer since the beginning. For sure the ADF needs to get onboard with it. I'm not going to whinge about the past. It is very interesting to me that a concept of having a 'poor man fleet defence', particularly to help defend the 'valuable asset' LHD or two, with a small group of F-35Bs during transit of open ocean, or around archipelagos for example, is a good one. Back in 1971-72 I was part of the small VF-805 Squadron onboard HMAS Melbourne (then a specialised ASW carrier with Wessex 31Bs and S2Es) for the purpose described. The Oz precedent is there. With the extra capability for networking that will be present in this new environment, the synergy for the ship and air assets is not bad.
Then the BLEEDin' Moaning RAAF CRABS can f off ashore when they are no longer needed. And we ain't talking about storming the beaches. The Bees are onboard for a short time as described then off to join up with their RAAF support maties ashore.
For sure plans change. First there was going to be only a 100 strong F-35A force. Then 2 doz Supers came along - then a doz Growlers - now there may be some Bees to mix it up again.
If you know anything about RAN history then you will recall that back in the early 1960s the RAN was going to scrap fixed wing by the mid 1960s to have a helo only ASW HMAS Melbourne. Then 'konfrontasi' emerged and minds were changed to 'back to the future' with the mix of aircraft described above, by 1969 (after a lengthy refit for MELBOURNE to cope with the new aircraft). Initially there were only ten Skyhawks with only 8 A4Gs available to be used as described. Later that same mix was doubled for more flexibility and mission changes onboard.
Some F-35Bs onboard are way better than NO F-35Bs onboard our LHDs, as required. And that is stressed again - when required. Mostly they will be ashore in crabland. So the crabs need to know what to do with them. I guess hop skipping and jumping around up north would be one answer. But I do not care about that. Not up to me chief.
______________________________
This is the closest to my idea (and probably goes beyond what I had in mind as stated above) best to read the two part of the article in total, the excerpt is just for the fleet defence concept above, so to speak, and again I stress - not for storming a defended beach as such - not sure if this thread has the 'valuable asset' description of the LHD (for Spain).
F-35B JSF for the ADF—a viable option in the 2015 White Paper? (Part 2) 30 May 2014 Malcolm Davis
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/f-3...-paper-part-2/
"......It’s in countering the advantages bestowed by strategic geography on an adversary practising anti-access operations where a small force of F-35Bs deployed on LHDs might play a significant role. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s key advantages are purported to be stealth, integrated avionics and an ability to network with off-board sensors—all of which contribute to the pilot in the F-35 having an information advantage over an opponent, whether that opponent is in the air, on land or on the sea. If the F-35B is seen as a key node in an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) network that contributes towards an expeditionary force gaining a knowledge advantage at the tactical level, then a force of F-35Bs on board LHDs will add to the joint task force survivability. Information gathered by the sensor systems can be exploited by the F-35B to attack detected targets, or the F-35B can act as a sensor in a ‘sensor to shooter’ link, with the ‘shooter’ being a naval vessel or a submarine. Furthermore, the F-35B can exploit austere bases on land—known as forward arming and refuelling points (FARPs)—to operate in support of naval task forces in archipelagic waters, thus easing operational challenges and risks for the LHDs....
...Only a small number could be carried onboard the LHDs, and at the expense of other important capabilities. But an F-35B acquisition could offer the ADF a more flexible way to undertake the Principal Tasks, even in the face of growing threats from an adversary’s anti-access ability."
Malcolm Davis is assistant professor in International Relations and post-doctoral research fellow in China-Western Relations at Bond University.
...Only a small number could be carried onboard the LHDs, and at the expense of other important capabilities. But an F-35B acquisition could offer the ADF a more flexible way to undertake the Principal Tasks, even in the face of growing threats from an adversary’s anti-access ability."
Malcolm Davis is assistant professor in International Relations and post-doctoral research fellow in China-Western Relations at Bond University.
Description from Navantia PDF brochure at location below.
"...The ship has been conceived as a “protected unit” in the sense that her defence is charged specifically to other units that may be submarine, surface or airborne and is in all cases a “valuable unit” because of its nature and the cargo she carries on board. For this reason the weapons on board are limited to four 20 mm cannons that provide moderate close-in self defence. She has a reserve of space and weight so that self-defence weapons may be integrated in a later phase: MK-38 assemblies (automatic system with remote control from the CIC) for asymmetric defence and 2 SEA RAM assemblies for anti-missile defence.
On a Command and Control level, the ship should integrate all the domestic and NATO systems in a wide set of classified networks that confer the capability to act as command ship at brigade level in amphibious operations and even as the naval HQ HRF command ship...."
This URL keeps breaking so here it is in full for copy/paste without the leading 'h': {so add it for working}
ttp://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfiles/files/sala_pr/folleto%20LHD_marzo_para%20navantia_ingles.pdf (2.3Mb)
This one may work or it may be broken:
http://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/user...tia_ingles.pdf
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 5th Jun 2014 at 05:49. Reason: textAdd + spel
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Wow! Jump jets for the RAAF to serve on navy carriers? Smart if it's an mature technology purchase I guess, but who are we fighting and would cruise missiles on AWD's and LHD based attack helicopters not suffice in the region?"
The thing is, not everything can be done by cruise missiles and Helos.
If they could, the LHD for amphib soldiers and commandos wouldn't be required.
"in the region?""
We don't just operate "in the region" though.
Gulf War 1 being an example.
RAAF, RAN, Army = Joint / Combined ops, was being preached
way back in 1988.
The thing is, not everything can be done by cruise missiles and Helos.
If they could, the LHD for amphib soldiers and commandos wouldn't be required.
"in the region?""
We don't just operate "in the region" though.
Gulf War 1 being an example.
RAAF, RAN, Army = Joint / Combined ops, was being preached
way back in 1988.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Transcript of the Oz Senate Session with plenty of bon mots is here:
ParlInfo - Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee : 02/06/2014 : Estimates : DEFENCE PORTFOLIO
There are a lot of words in play. IF using Internet Explorer then open the EDIT window - Find on this page (Ctrl F) "F-35B" without the quotes and the start of the argybargy about F-35Bs on LHDs starts.
0.5Mb PDF 8 pages of the relevant 'Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs' transcript here:
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=18996 OO00oops did not realise the link was broken....
ParlInfo - Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee : 02/06/2014 : Estimates : DEFENCE PORTFOLIO
There are a lot of words in play. IF using Internet Explorer then open the EDIT window - Find on this page (Ctrl F) "F-35B" without the quotes and the start of the argybargy about F-35Bs on LHDs starts.
0.5Mb PDF 8 pages of the relevant 'Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs' transcript here:
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=18996 OO00oops did not realise the link was broken....
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 6th Jun 2014 at 03:23. Reason: Ctrl F + PDF URL - FIXED now
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing I still can't understand - and I haven't yet had a chance to do a full read is why, IF the F-35B was on the cards to be used by Aus off the LHD's did we then get them built WITHOUT all the bits needed for them ?
I know the design was changed to accomodate the Amphib role / helos but not taking into account the F-35B is crazy if we end up using them.
I know the design was changed to accomodate the Amphib role / helos but not taking into account the F-35B is crazy if we end up using them.
Having the capability to cross-deck with the USMC is also a plus. Remember the RAN has gone from one flattop to none and now two units. They could well be operating in different areas doing different things not just planning a re-run of Iwo Jima...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBM
Aren't the US Marine F35-B's going to be based at Tindal for a period
of time to cross train with the US Marines that come on rotation ?
I am sure I saw a list of different US Aircraft that might be visiting
Tindal as part of this whole training exercise (apart from Jet Black etc).
Aren't the US Marine F35-B's going to be based at Tindal for a period
of time to cross train with the US Marines that come on rotation ?
I am sure I saw a list of different US Aircraft that might be visiting
Tindal as part of this whole training exercise (apart from Jet Black etc).
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TBM-Legend
Remember the RAN has gone from one flattop to none and now two units.
* Sydney was Fast Troop Transport/LPH until November 1973.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Only pages about F-35Bs on LHDs repeat PLUS the chat about buying F-35As from the 02 June 2014 Senate Hearing in Australia PDF attached from original PDF below:
Original PDF: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...848ab3/0000%22 (280Kb PDF)
Edited PDF: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19016 (PDF 200Kb)
Original PDF: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...848ab3/0000%22 (280Kb PDF)
Edited PDF: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19016 (PDF 200Kb)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBM-Legend
Remember the RAN has gone from one flattop to none and now two units.
Actually, from none (pre-February 1949), to one (Sydney February 1949 - December 1952), to two (Sydney & Vengeance December 1952 - October 1955 & Sydney & Melbourne October 1955 - May 1958), to one* (Melbourne May 1958 - June 1982), to none (June 1982>).
* Sydney was Fast Troop Transport/LPH until November 1973.
Originally Posted by TBM-Legend
Remember the RAN has gone from one flattop to none and now two units.
Actually, from none (pre-February 1949), to one (Sydney February 1949 - December 1952), to two (Sydney & Vengeance December 1952 - October 1955 & Sydney & Melbourne October 1955 - May 1958), to one* (Melbourne May 1958 - June 1982), to none (June 1982>).
* Sydney was Fast Troop Transport/LPH until November 1973.
The 1981 Defence White Paper and its planned reduction in the size of the carrier fleet saw Invincible marked as surplus to requirements, and the ship was offered for sale to the Royal Australian Navy in July 1981 as a replacement for the ageing aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne.[16] The class had previously been considered and discarded as a potential replacement for the Australian ship, but the low GB£175 million (A$285 million) offer price and the already-constructed state of the vessel prompted the Australian government to announce in February 1982 their intention to accept the British offer.[17] In Australian service, the ship would have been named HMAS Australia, and would operate as a helicopter carrier until a later decision on the acquisition of Sea Harriers was made.[18] Invincible's service during the Falklands War showed that the White Paper's suggested reductions were flawed and both nations withdrew from the deal in July 1982.[17]
Invincible's service during the Falklands War showed that the White Paper's suggested reductions were flawed and both nations withdrew from the deal in July 1982