RAAF CAF slams 'his' Air Force!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Long article best read at source particularly for 'who will fly them potential Oz F-35Bs from Oz LHDs':
Thoughts on the LHD and a fixed wing capability
30 May 2014 Commander David Hobbs, MBE, RN (Rtd)
Thoughts on the LHD and a fixed wing capability | Australian Naval Institute
Thoughts on the LHD and a fixed wing capability
30 May 2014 Commander David Hobbs, MBE, RN (Rtd)
"TO THE the logical mind, the most surprising element of the 2007 decision to build two Canberra class LHDs was the acceptance by the Australian Government of advice from a lobby group that fighter aircraft based in Australia, with their limited radius of action and fixed supply chains, could provide support for these ships and their ‘all-arms’ battle groups wherever they might be deployed.
The Government had already stated its intention to procure the land-based F-35A Lightning II joint strike fighter but showed no interest in the STOVL F-35B variant (pictured) being developed specifically for amphibious operations with the US Marine Corps. Protagonists of the limited ability of ‘land-locked’ air forces to project power pointed to the availability of air-to-air refuelling to extend the range of fighters but there has, as yet, been no break-through that allows them to be re-armed in flight, and crew fatigue on long sorties must be a significant factor that degrades performance.
In 2008 the Sea Power Centre studied the relative value of shore and sea-borne aircraft and noted the observed historical fact that terminal air bases associated with distant crises are seldom secured beforehand and usually lack the capability to provide immediate support at the level of operations needed for crisis response. The same document notes, on the other hand, that embarked aircraft are fully mobile, operational to their maximum level of performance on arrival in the crisis area and largely secure from ground-based interruptions and asymmetric attacks....
...The best example of rapid and effective reaction to an unexpected crisis is the Falklands conflict of 1982. Possession of the two flat-tops, Hermes and Invincible, allowed the Royal Navy to deploy a task force with naval Sea Harriers and helicopters that were able to fight on, under and over the sea surface. RAF Harriers were subsequently able to join Hermes’ air group but it needs to be pointed out that the ship’s highly skilled aircraft handlers were able to cope with their lack of experience and naval pilots were able to teach them how to operate in a maritime environment. In other words the RAF squadron was not in its primary environment and a force that relied on it for both offence and defence would have been weaker and less effective without the naval professionals who specialised in embarked flying.
A ship that was not as worked up and specialised could not have coped with the new-comers’ inexperience and the example of Illustrious in 2007 is interesting . With no Harrier squadron of her own she embarked 16 AV-8Bs of USMC squadron VMA-542 which flew 152 sorties in twelve hours. In contrast an RAF Harrier squadron embarked in Ark Royal in similar circumstances in 2010 had to carry out several days deck landing training before being considered operational and, in the ensuing exercise, flew less sorties in five days than the USMC had flown in Illustrious in two. Unlike the Marines the RAF were not able to fly at night because of their lack of carrier experience. A land-based unit that undertakes random embarkations as a secondary function will never demonstrate full operational proficiency.
Future conflict in the Pacific region may well rely on control of the sea and that control may not be possible for navies that lack effective aircraft able to operate as an integral part of a triphibious task force. An increasing number of navies have carriers and LHD-type ‘flat-tops’ and Prime Minister Tony Abbot’s May 2014 instruction to planners working on the next Defence White Paper that they are to examine the possibility of putting a squadron of 12 F-35B Lightning II joint strike fighters onto the LHDs to “ensure that Australia maintains a sustainable, versatile and highly capable defence force” shows a ray of hope that the full potential of these ships might be realised. Fortunately their design originated from the Spanish Juan Carlos 1 which was intended to operate STOVL fighters as well as helicopters and even retains the ‘ski-jump’ (it cost less to leave it in place than to redesign the bow to remove it) but significant modifications would be needed to embark F-35Bs on a regular basis. These would include the fitting out of air weapons magazines and handling systems together with the autonomous logistic information system, ALIS, which is at the heart of F-35 operation and maintenance and other arrangements. Aircraft handlers would need training in the operation of both fixed and rotary wing aircraft on deck and sortie generation would require the installation of briefing and flight planning facilities, simulators for pilots to ‘pre-fly’ missions and maintain training standards...."
The Government had already stated its intention to procure the land-based F-35A Lightning II joint strike fighter but showed no interest in the STOVL F-35B variant (pictured) being developed specifically for amphibious operations with the US Marine Corps. Protagonists of the limited ability of ‘land-locked’ air forces to project power pointed to the availability of air-to-air refuelling to extend the range of fighters but there has, as yet, been no break-through that allows them to be re-armed in flight, and crew fatigue on long sorties must be a significant factor that degrades performance.
In 2008 the Sea Power Centre studied the relative value of shore and sea-borne aircraft and noted the observed historical fact that terminal air bases associated with distant crises are seldom secured beforehand and usually lack the capability to provide immediate support at the level of operations needed for crisis response. The same document notes, on the other hand, that embarked aircraft are fully mobile, operational to their maximum level of performance on arrival in the crisis area and largely secure from ground-based interruptions and asymmetric attacks....
...The best example of rapid and effective reaction to an unexpected crisis is the Falklands conflict of 1982. Possession of the two flat-tops, Hermes and Invincible, allowed the Royal Navy to deploy a task force with naval Sea Harriers and helicopters that were able to fight on, under and over the sea surface. RAF Harriers were subsequently able to join Hermes’ air group but it needs to be pointed out that the ship’s highly skilled aircraft handlers were able to cope with their lack of experience and naval pilots were able to teach them how to operate in a maritime environment. In other words the RAF squadron was not in its primary environment and a force that relied on it for both offence and defence would have been weaker and less effective without the naval professionals who specialised in embarked flying.
A ship that was not as worked up and specialised could not have coped with the new-comers’ inexperience and the example of Illustrious in 2007 is interesting . With no Harrier squadron of her own she embarked 16 AV-8Bs of USMC squadron VMA-542 which flew 152 sorties in twelve hours. In contrast an RAF Harrier squadron embarked in Ark Royal in similar circumstances in 2010 had to carry out several days deck landing training before being considered operational and, in the ensuing exercise, flew less sorties in five days than the USMC had flown in Illustrious in two. Unlike the Marines the RAF were not able to fly at night because of their lack of carrier experience. A land-based unit that undertakes random embarkations as a secondary function will never demonstrate full operational proficiency.
Future conflict in the Pacific region may well rely on control of the sea and that control may not be possible for navies that lack effective aircraft able to operate as an integral part of a triphibious task force. An increasing number of navies have carriers and LHD-type ‘flat-tops’ and Prime Minister Tony Abbot’s May 2014 instruction to planners working on the next Defence White Paper that they are to examine the possibility of putting a squadron of 12 F-35B Lightning II joint strike fighters onto the LHDs to “ensure that Australia maintains a sustainable, versatile and highly capable defence force” shows a ray of hope that the full potential of these ships might be realised. Fortunately their design originated from the Spanish Juan Carlos 1 which was intended to operate STOVL fighters as well as helicopters and even retains the ‘ski-jump’ (it cost less to leave it in place than to redesign the bow to remove it) but significant modifications would be needed to embark F-35Bs on a regular basis. These would include the fitting out of air weapons magazines and handling systems together with the autonomous logistic information system, ALIS, which is at the heart of F-35 operation and maintenance and other arrangements. Aircraft handlers would need training in the operation of both fixed and rotary wing aircraft on deck and sortie generation would require the installation of briefing and flight planning facilities, simulators for pilots to ‘pre-fly’ missions and maintain training standards...."
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
and crew fatigue on long sorties must be a significant factor that degrades performance.
How come on a few occasions - Falklands, Libya - pilots can fly very long range missions - but they now say it is a problem ?
How come on a few occasions - Falklands, Libya - pilots can fly very long range missions - but they now say it is a problem ?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Bomber pilots OR Fighter Pilots? Reports suggest some pilots in the recent past have been on prescribed amphetamines (and have made mistakes due to the effects of these drugs perhaps). But anyway here goes an oldie but a goldie for the RAAF Crab on LHD thingo.
A SELF RELIANT DEFENCE FORCE Submitted to the [Australian] Defence [Force] White Paper Team
28 July 2008 John Bird
http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper.../Bird_John.pdf (0.27Mb)
A SELF RELIANT DEFENCE FORCE Submitted to the [Australian] Defence [Force] White Paper Team
28 July 2008 John Bird
"Paul Dibb (The Dibb Report June 1986) emphasised that as far as is possible, we should ensure that Australia's equipment purchases are 'Force Multipliers' by which he meant that as far as possible, defence equipment should serve, in addition to its primary purpose, to support other areas of defence and so maximise its utility. We are presently on the brink of acquiring a number of equipment items that could form the basis of the best 'force multiplier' that the ADF has ever possessed, but sadly it would appear that government is unlikely to see the need to properly equip two of the platforms presently in the pipeline....
...Objections have been raised in various quarters to the proposal to acquire a fixed wing integral air capability and it would be worthwhile identifying some of these and challenging them.
*Navy will be fully committed in handling all the equipment currently owned and in the pipeline, given the constraints of personnel available.
The proposal does not consider an increase in equipment for Navy. Air Force would bring its aircraft, spares, maintenance equipment and personnel aboard Navy platforms and if one has to consider detail, Air Force could contribute to victualling and any other incidental costs for which it would be responsible should the aircraft be in service elsewhere....
...*RAAF opposition has long been a barrier to the acquisition of a shipborne (integral) air capability. Having long ago lost its control of rotary wing flying, it wishes to retain control of fixed wing aircraft, no matter where they are operated.
This proposal supports that aim and supports the one service control of the F35 and all its support facilities. It requires only that the aircraft is made available to the navy when required, to provide the support with which the air force has long been tasked. The essential difference this time is that would be a credible, an achievable support.
There is still an urgent need to develop a defence force that is, to the extent that is economically feasible, self reliant, and a fleet without integral fixed wing air support cannot, in this day and age be considered to be self reliant. The force requires to be able to respond to situations which may develop in and around our island home and in our neighbourhood, embracing at least New Zealand and our island dependencies. We must also be able to a reasonable extent, to protect our sea lines of communication, the loss of which would deny the nation the ability to resist an aggressor for more than a very limited period of time, given the crippling effects on our economy that would be suffered. Our 'Neighbourhood' should additionally encompass Papua New Guinea and our neighbour allies in the island chains to our north and in near Southeast Asia. A self reliant fleet is an essential element of any force charged with these tasks...."
...Objections have been raised in various quarters to the proposal to acquire a fixed wing integral air capability and it would be worthwhile identifying some of these and challenging them.
*Navy will be fully committed in handling all the equipment currently owned and in the pipeline, given the constraints of personnel available.
The proposal does not consider an increase in equipment for Navy. Air Force would bring its aircraft, spares, maintenance equipment and personnel aboard Navy platforms and if one has to consider detail, Air Force could contribute to victualling and any other incidental costs for which it would be responsible should the aircraft be in service elsewhere....
...*RAAF opposition has long been a barrier to the acquisition of a shipborne (integral) air capability. Having long ago lost its control of rotary wing flying, it wishes to retain control of fixed wing aircraft, no matter where they are operated.
This proposal supports that aim and supports the one service control of the F35 and all its support facilities. It requires only that the aircraft is made available to the navy when required, to provide the support with which the air force has long been tasked. The essential difference this time is that would be a credible, an achievable support.
There is still an urgent need to develop a defence force that is, to the extent that is economically feasible, self reliant, and a fleet without integral fixed wing air support cannot, in this day and age be considered to be self reliant. The force requires to be able to respond to situations which may develop in and around our island home and in our neighbourhood, embracing at least New Zealand and our island dependencies. We must also be able to a reasonable extent, to protect our sea lines of communication, the loss of which would deny the nation the ability to resist an aggressor for more than a very limited period of time, given the crippling effects on our economy that would be suffered. Our 'Neighbourhood' should additionally encompass Papua New Guinea and our neighbour allies in the island chains to our north and in near Southeast Asia. A self reliant fleet is an essential element of any force charged with these tasks...."
Cross-decking with USMC F-35B's given our relationship with them now is a plus for these ships and therefore the ability to carry our own jets is a positive for all of the ADF and our coalition partners.
HMAS Melbourne, as small as she was, was able to perform numerous fleet roles quite well. In the end old age [Cat issues etc] and "rust" caught up with her when defence spending was heading south. HMS Invincible was informally offered to Australia in late 1980 as a number of us were warned out to possibly go to the UK for training when a "deal" was done. Obviously other events overtook this...
HMAS Melbourne, as small as she was, was able to perform numerous fleet roles quite well. In the end old age [Cat issues etc] and "rust" caught up with her when defence spending was heading south. HMS Invincible was informally offered to Australia in late 1980 as a number of us were warned out to possibly go to the UK for training when a "deal" was done. Obviously other events overtook this...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Yeah - now I know why the OzGubmnt plans to up the retirement age from 65. I'll have to step up in the weight class though. Augmented eyesight probably works a treat with the HMDS III. Always dreamt of going flying in me jammies and slippers - and home before teatime - no G - BVR baby - no tears. 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Some more AM Browne - Dr. Jensen argybargy from Fri 6th June 2014 Senate Committee Hearing on F-35 (in part). 10 pages from the main PDF at Guvmnt website:
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...b353dc/0000%22 (0.7Mb)
F-35 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade_2014_06_06_2560.pdf
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19060 (10 pages 0.3Mb PDF)
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...b353dc/0000%22 (0.7Mb)
F-35 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade_2014_06_06_2560.pdf
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19060 (10 pages 0.3Mb PDF)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
LHD and STOVL—An engineer’s view 20 June 2014
LHD and STOVL—An engineer’s view 20 Jun 2014 Steve George
LHD and STOVL?An engineer?s view | The Strategist
"Steve George was an air engineer officer in the Royal Navy for 28 years, and served in HMS Invincible during the 1982 Falklands operation. During his career, he was closely involved with the Sea Harrier, and also with joint RN/RAF Harrier operations. Retiring from the RN as a Commander, he joined the JSF programme to work on F-35B ship suitability. He is now an engineering consultant."
LHD and STOVL?An engineer?s view | The Strategist
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve George, eh? A clever chap that one. His article constitutes the total sum of intelligent analysis of what the Aussies need to think about, while debunking the astounding ignorance and arrogance of academics who've already enlightened us with their garbage. A great article.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
These pages are the LHD & F-35B & Harrier excerpts from 22 June 2014 edition of ‘A Pictorial History of Royal Australian Navy Fleet Air Arm Skyhawk A-4G & all other FAA Aircraft...’; + ‘How to Deck Land VL & SRVL style’ with Harrier and F-35B examples.
FOLDER: '__LHD & F-35B Info VL + Harrier':
URL: https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=CBCD6...D6340707E6!298
File Name: LHDs & F-35Bs + Harriers Info ONLY 22 June 2014 Excerpts.PDF (270Mb)
URL: http://1drv.ms/1ioph3s
RIGHT MOUSE CLICK ON THE ICON or whatever file name seen as above and DOWNLOAD this file.
FOLDER: '__LHD & F-35B Info VL + Harrier':
URL: https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=CBCD6...D6340707E6!298
File Name: LHDs & F-35Bs + Harriers Info ONLY 22 June 2014 Excerpts.PDF (270Mb)
URL: http://1drv.ms/1ioph3s
RIGHT MOUSE CLICK ON THE ICON or whatever file name seen as above and DOWNLOAD this file.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Primera toma de un MV-22 Osprey a bordo del buque ?Juan Carlos I? - Noticias de la Armada - Armada Española - Ministerio de Defensa - Gobierno de España
http://translate.google.com/translat...26channel%3Dsb
USMC MV-22 Ospreys aboard Juan Carlos I - with photos.
Looking good for USMC-RAN cross-deck operations.
http://translate.google.com/translat...26channel%3Dsb
USMC MV-22 Ospreys aboard Juan Carlos I - with photos.
Looking good for USMC-RAN cross-deck operations.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The polar tropics
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a long, straight-bat introduction and overview of the news with tech and conceptual detail of all this in the current issue of Aust Aviation magazine.
Not a bad article, not bad at all!
Not a bad article, not bad at all!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
I was just down at my local bar and it is cold here, so wore my flying jacket. Good call, kept me warm, and it's the late US nomex green style before everyone went leather!
But I would not be seen dead in a red-and-white check one !!
But I would not be seen dead in a red-and-white check one !!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
What are you talking about? Who has a red/white chequered flying jacket?
The closest I came to be LURID was wearing the standard shiny green jacket inside out to show the orange lining. Talk about LAFF! And the smell was horrendous.
The closest I came to be LURID was wearing the standard shiny green jacket inside out to show the orange lining. Talk about LAFF! And the smell was horrendous.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what would you prefer on your shiny new F-35 Spaz? Light gull gray with white under sides or the darker all over camo? I'm sure we could find a spot to store your slippers.
