STOVL F35's for RAN???
 

Push for air back-up on navy's new ships

• Brendan Nicholson
• July 11, 2008

AN INFLUENTIAL defence group has urged the Federal Government to buy up to 12 short take-off versions of the Joint Strike Fighter that could operate from the navy's massive new amphibious landing ships.
The Navy League of Australia says those drafting the new defence white paper should exploit the capabilities of the landing ships and the new multi-role aircraft that is the likely choice to replace the RAAF's F-111 bombers and F/A-18 fighter bombers.
The Government is expected to decide early next year to buy up to 100 of the US-built Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs).
The navy is to get two Spanish Navantia landing ships, officially designated LHD (Landing Helicopter Dock), which can carry 1000 troops, six helicopters and 150 vehicles, including Abrams tanks.
They will be named HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide, with the first to be in service by about 2012.
Some defence specialists have pointed out that the landing ships would be heavily protected by the navy's other new heavyweights, the air warfare destroyers.
But the Navy League says it would be a mistake to send the ships, laden with troops and equipment, overseas without air support.
"Landing uninvited in someone's country should not be done half-heartedly," it says in the latest edition of its magazine, The Navy.
"Experience has shown that land forces deployed without organic air support are extremely vulnerable from the ground and air.
"The inclusion in the JSF purchase of 12 of the short take-off and vertical landing version at present being built for the Royal Navy and the US Marine Corps would provide the Australian Defence Force with much needed options."
The Navy League says the new ships and aircraft would be in service for at least 30 years.
"It is impossible to forecast the contingencies the ADF may face between now and 2050. It is highly desirable that the ADF is equipped to handle all possible situations."
A flight of four to six Joint Strike Fighters, flown by RAAF pilots, could be placed on each landing ship, the Navy League suggests.
The Spanish Navy's landing ships are equipped to carry Harrier jump jets and are expected to be able to carry Joint Strike Fighters.
The Navy League stresses that equipping each of the new ships with a few Joint Strike Fighters would not turn them into aircraft carriers.
But at 25,790 tonnes, the new vessels will be bigger than Australia's last aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, which was 20,000 tonnes fully laden.

:D

The Navy League author must have felt sickened writing that, but probably thought "if we suggest these aircraft were to be flown by Fleet Air Arm pilots the ALP would have conniptions" ......

The FAA pilots were always of the opinion that the RAAF never really liked the navy having fighters, they were happy for them to jolly around in helos but leave the fast stuff for the boys in blue, I suppose the only difference now is that the number 1 boy in blue was an ex navy fighter pilot. On ya Binny:D
On another note, why are navy pilots required to complete the entire pilot course to the same standard as RAAF pilots whereby you will not fly fixed wing!!! If all the navy has is helo's, why aren't navy pilots doing the same training as the army guys. The navy have had a number of Mids scrubbed right at the end of 2FTS for elements of the programme they will never use in the FAA whereas the army cadet would not of been tested on this and hence got his wings. If navy pilots are still graduating to RAAF standards, then they could step up to the F35:ugh: Thats my two cents

You would think so. I think the RAN is going to have trouble crewing the ships and aircraft they have on order, let alone new aircraft.

I spoke to a bloke at a local flying school the other day who intends leaving the RAN to persue a civilian flying career. He appeared to be a very switched on sort of person but he was adamant he will not learn to fly through the Navy. The attrition needs to be slowed before they can ad any more capabilities. That said, it sounds like a good idea.

Navy pilots, unlike their Army counterparts, fly in single pilot operations. The Observer is trained to take over and ditch in case of emergency - that's it. That's why they require a higher standard of initial training.

You sure about that?? Sea King has 2 pilots, its replacement will have 2 pilots(s-70B is flown with an observer in the left seat) , as for the army, They have had years of single pilot operations, Kiowa, Tiger, Porter and I think the Nomad could be flown single pilot.
Originally navy pilots were trained to RAAF standard because they could fly a full range of aircaft, single pilot thing sounds strange!!

I guess it doesn't take much to shout MayDay on the radio...:uhoh:

Wessex:

NAVY pilots do the full bit (well - it was explained to me this way anyway) becasue when they enventually arrive on operational aircraft, they could/will be conducting blue water ops without divert airfields etc or the ability to just "put it down anywhere". Requires a more comprehensive set of skills that those for Army.

Probably also stems from the good old days when the Navy used to throw their Trackers and Skyhawks onto decks. Bloody shame they don't still do that kind of stuff - maybe we'll see it again now.
I'd've loved to have seen Harriers in Aussie service.

Gather the problem with Harriers now is they can carry heavy and expensive BVR missiles OK in the North Atlantic but can't do the vertical landing bit with them in hot conditions. Would be a bit limiting for us.

wessex, just for info the Trackers were single pilot with an Observer in the RHS.

When I was going through my aborted attempt at 2FTS, this issue raised its head and the SNO (Senior Naval Officer) said that flying choppers in the Navy required a much higher instrument flying proficiency than BFTS provided graduates with. Looks like it is all about being able to fly on the clocks....

As to the proposal, how effective are 6, yes a full SIX, JSFs going to be on each ship? Wouldn't imagine much effect would be achieved with crew duty, maintenance, etc. all dragging down the ability to drop bombs on targets. At least not enough of an effect to warrant the cost....

Brian Abraham, correct you are. Although I think the US navy flew them with 2 pilots

1. You can't do 24 hour CAP ops with only six aircraft.
2. You can't do CAP and strike at the same time with only six aircraft.

Therefore you need AWACS to tell you when the bad hats are coming and thus when to launch your aircraft.

So now we need wedgetail, and thus protection for that asset. Not looking too good now...

Wessex, correct you are as well re US. We did as well initially, but for some reason, now long foregotten, we went single pilot.

sketch of RAN F-35 of 805 SQN on Wikipedia!!!
Someone has way too much spare time

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...a/RAN_F-35.JPG

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fighter/f35/f35-6.jpg

http://uscockpits.com/Jet%20Fighters...mulator)-1.jpg

Gee that's one awkward looking aircraft. The Harrier was grace personified in comparison.

The air warfare destroyers would be the primary defence against air attack.

Could a stealth fighter, with long range missiles and in conjunction with Wedgetails ( if in range ), provide flexible offensive and defensive air to air capability against potential, moderately capable foes ?

There are a myriad of scenarios where a token airborne strike capability ( beyond scout helicopters ) would be useful.

Ships move. How many ground attack sorties could be generated by 6-12 aircraft in 24 hours, off Dili say, versus a Tindal based squadron?

What about off Fiji?

If these things work it makes sense that the RAAF buy them to enhance the capabilities of the expeditionary forces we are developing for regional operations.

Inter-service rivalries granted. This is a chance for the RAAF to justify its high numbers of JSF's.

If the RAN gets cruise missiles for its submarines and air warfare destroyers. Some of those JSF numbers won't be justified.

Gnadenburg,
The issue isn't how many strike sorties could be generated from a ship off Dili. It is how to counter the 40+ Indon aircraft that would have been coming your way if we had have struck targets around Dili.

6-12 aircraft on 1-2 ships makes that ship a floating target (much like tanks... but I digress). The ONLY place this would be useful is where the good guys (us and our friends) have absolute total air superiority.

I guess the X factor is how much better the good old JSF will be vs whomever we are likely to go up against. If it is as good as the F22 at stealth (and it should be) then yes it may make my points above moot and 6 - 12 aircraft could defeat any number of conventional agressors (until they run out of BVR missiles...)

Another often overlooked point is ROE also comes into it and the pollies in their infinite wisdom may make a positive visual ID necessary before being able to shoot thus negating the Stealth capability... but again I digress and wax lyrical...)

Just a few points and I do tend to agree with what you have written.

Cheers
Mr B

Mr Bomb, you make some good points if the fleet is used in isolation, but I could envisage a mixed force operation whereby land based F-35A's with tanker & Wedgetail support would fly the CAP, while ship based F-35B's would fly the attack sorties (with a much higher ROE compared to land based aircraft). The extra fuel capacity of the F-35A makes them better suited to the CAP role than the F-35B.

I always thought that the LHD acquisition was a thinly disguised plan for the RAN to re-acquire Aircraft Carrier capability. :)