Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Aircraft carrier in Navy's $4bn wish list

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Aircraft carrier in Navy's $4bn wish list

Old 25th Mar 2008, 07:29
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: meh
Posts: 674
Received 9 Likes on 7 Posts
I am not defence expert but seeing our remoteness from the rest of our neighbours, would it not make sense to have a naval capability to deliver aircraft? Throw in some long range stuff like the missiles suggested as well from sub platforms. Really, it makes sense to me as an observer. I am guessing the RAAF would not be happy if being the AIRforce, they were turned into something like the kiwi airfarce.
Plazbot is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2008, 07:31
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well I guess its not a secret anymore then!
yowie is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2008, 07:34
  #23 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I reckon this might be the navy's way of stopping the new gov from cutting their budget.
attack is the best form of defence sort of thing.look kev we actually need $40 billion more to be able to do our stuff not less.
Going Boeing.....I think that's basically what RW said.....

Buster....I didn't think so....

I meant of course that as a greeny his inclination would be to want a solar powered sub.....that is opposed to a coal powered sub
lowerlobe is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2008, 09:09
  #24 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PAF....

I guess then that you are saying that Navy chief Vice Admiral Russ Shalders is independent & impartial and able to objectively advise the Government.
lowerlobe is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2008, 09:26
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 133
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
During my stint with the 'Gray Funnel Line' (immediately post HMAS Melbourne and Invincible) the 'rumour' going around was that the USN was about to offer us (the RAN) the USS Oriskany or something similiar.

Now I see the rumour is for the K'Hawk.

Gotta love those buzzes.

We need an aircraft carrier about as much as we need 100 x JSF's! I truly hope we don't buy either. I can barely stomach the backflip on the Super Hornet.
OhSpareMe is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2008, 09:44
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Navy couldn't organise a chook raffle. They can barely crew or maintain half their fleet now. Refits are continually way overschedule and over budget. They cannot retain the few well trained people that they do have and all they are left with is the dead wood.

So what do they want to do? Buy even more complex and large platforms that they will be unable to crew and maintain to any decent standard.

They'd be better off filling up a couple of hercs with $100 notes and dropping them all over South East Asia to keep the neighbours onside!!

If the Navy were an airline they'd be grounded. To be fair though, They probably work OK when their being shot at!!
numbskull is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2008, 10:07
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Melb
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
after having recently spent 9 years with the navy what is being said on this forum is basically the truth. The navy can spend as much as it wants on new platforms, but unless they consider real retention alternatives there is going to be no-one to crew them.
dsham is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2008, 10:30
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 46 Likes on 20 Posts
they already have subs tied up alongside at Stirling due to lack of crew.
havick is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2008, 12:03
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If they buy a aircraft carrier, its the last time my boat is going to Sydney Harbour!
teresa green is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2008, 13:01
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 54
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am by no means a defence expert so can someone answer my question. If I have in flight refuelling, a long range type and long range standoff weapons. What does an aircraft carrier give me in a regional conflict that these things don't? What is the tactical advantage of something that I'll have to use a heap of resources to protect that can be achieved by using other means? Or can it?. Again if the answer is an easy one please let me know. I'm not up to speed with the tactical thinking in this regard.
Whiskey Oscar Golf is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2008, 19:32
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 44
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For an Island nation I have always wondered why we didnt have an aircraft carrier.... with the exception of RAAF base Tidnal all our air capability seems a long way from our potential threats. Landing a Hornet on a carrier, sounds like fun to me
jethrolx is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2008, 19:39
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SAVES!!!
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There are skeleton bases all around the Top End.

Maybe you all missed the bit about the V/STOL aspect. Won't be any hornets landing on these boats.

The journo can't add up his billions, neither.

Last edited by G-ZUZZ; 25th Mar 2008 at 20:03.
G-ZUZZ is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2008, 21:47
  #33 (permalink)  

Evertonian
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Posts: 12,437
Received 89 Likes on 50 Posts
W.O.G. - I guess all I can come up with is that whilst you have the refuelling etc, it's still a long way there & a long way back...not a lot of missions can be run if they have to travel so far. The carrier affords frequency of missions at the very least, although I do understand your valid point.

A bit like sending "gunboat up river" perhaps....


Anyways....I don't care much for the song, but these look nice!

Last edited by Buster Hyman; 26th Mar 2008 at 04:02.
Buster Hyman is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 03:48
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Papua New Guinea
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely any vessel named HMAS Dr.Bob Brown would suffer from excessive
leaking due to friction of the shaft on the stern gland and stuffing box?
ApocalypseThen is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 03:50
  #35 (permalink)  

Evertonian
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Posts: 12,437
Received 89 Likes on 50 Posts
Would that inhibit its ability to go down, below?
Buster Hyman is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 10:39
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Papua New Guinea
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The seamen would have to escape somehow .
ApocalypseThen is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 11:12
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,864
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Maybe the Navy wants some of these?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../dd-x-pics.htm
Going Boeing is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.