RAAF to get the F-22 and/or F-18E/F?

[bob55]

Originally Posted by oldm8

I have heard that it is now part of the conversion at 2OCU.

Some of you might not know that the mighty Pig has a hook too, and I have it on good authority that they are writing deck landings into the syllabus at 6Sqn.

Soon our hornets will be able to "stage" through carrier groups on their way to overseas destinations. There is so much room on those carrier decks it is no problem to park a RAAF squadron and refuel before pressing on.

I find that hard to believe - please give more details.

The F-111 never served with the USN, only the USAF and the hook is for the ground based BAK 12/14 system which is used by most Air Force fighters.

Given that the F-111s will only be operation for 5 or so years - and that they will never be deployed - I find it hard to believe they would start new training for which the aircaft was never designed.

Are you sure you have a good source on this? Are you sure it's not just - nothing???!!!??

[bob55]

Originally Posted by JetA_OK

The initial certification for carrier ops in the USN is in the order of 6 months. You then have to requal at intervals, not to mention maintain a "grading" in all carrier landings (ie - fall below the grading and get de-certified). More than their fair share of US knucks kill themselves in qualifying. Even more kill themselves on operational tours. Its not a part time hobby. I think the concept of Ronnie RAAF rocking up and shooting a few bolters on USS Ronnie Reagan (even with a one week classroom course at 2OCU) is a bit far fetched

And people are forgetting one vital fact.... we don't have any aircraft carriers! We can't build capabilities based on other defence forces. The F-111 refueling is one example - it's great when we can get it but we can't plan for it.

[Dragon79]

I think Oldm8 may have some bites.

I don't think anyone can seriously believe that our FA18s & F111 can fly of a carrier, about as much chance as me laying a golden egg I would think.


A$2 Billion for the C17, I believe it was US$220mil per copy. Even at 75c in the US$ that would be around $1.1 Billion.



However we are spending a shed load on equipment over the next ten years around A$51 billion I believe. Spent wisely (insert smart arse remark here) is it not beyond the realms of feasibility that we could purchase the raptor and some rhinos or advanced eagles?

The pipe dream would be to see the super hornets fly off a CVF. Either that or if we go down the JSF path, buy STVOL for LHD ops? We've been very lucky that all of our recent deployments have been in "friendly" countries, Sol & ET, or from staging bases in friendly countries Afg & Iraq.

JET OK, are you saying the if were to purchase a carrier, the men and women of the ADF would not be able to develop the skills, process and procedures to operate a carrier. Although its been along break between drinks, I am sure our friends in the USN would welcome an additional carrier in the south pacific / south asian region, and would give us a hand to get it up and running.

Defense spending on specialist equipment, next 5 years.
2006/2007 A$3,969,944,000
2007/2008 A$4,370,480,000
2008/2009 A$4,409,902,000
2009/2010 A$4,769,820,000


http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/06-..._08_s1_ch7.pdf

[Buster Hyman]

Personally, I'd love a carrier. Not sure whether I want it for security, prestige, or to just stick it up the Kiwis! However, I doubt we could afford multiple units & therefore, should we put all our Naval assets into a single carrier group? Nice, stand out target don't you think...a bit like the Belgrano (?)

As highly unlikely as it sounds for the RAAF, I do believe the F111 was also designed for carrier ops, but was deemed too heavy for that role & the USN dropped all interest. Wouldn't they love us if we put one through their deck!

Well, if we aren't trustworthy to operate F22's ourselves, lets give the Yanks some land up North & tell them they can defend us then!

[maralinga]

One slight catch, we dont have enough personnel to operate it all

[Dragon79]

Two valid points against the carrier.

Personnel
Agree this is an issue, but I think this is going to be an issue regardless of purchaing a carrier, going forward.
We are purchasing 3 xAWD and 2 x LHD. This is surely going to require an increase in number for the Navy. Do we have excess personnel sitting around waiting for these to come along? We are retiring another FFG, but correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe the Manoora and Kanimbla are being retired before the LHD, they are going to be replaced by something else.

The other thing with the carrier is that a squadron of maintainers would need to be raised. Even though I could see RAAF pilots being willing to operate jets off a carrier, it would be a bit rough to expect RAAF maintainers to go to sea, unless the signed up for it.

Out to 2015 I think we need to up our serving numbers to 75k severing 35K Army, 25k Navy, 20k RAAF. The problem is going to be recruiting this many. National service, don't think that will fly. But I think Dr Nelson is on the right path with reducing some of the stupid rules, tattoos, previous drug user (so long as they agree to a drug test and pass).

I think the introduction of something like the GI bill in the US, could be introduced. Sign up and at the end of your commitment, will give you a slot in a Uni or TAFE and pay the fees. Would much prefer to see my tax dollars being used to put a former service person through a Uni or TAFE, then some 18 year old arts student who'll stay at uni, or nick off OS, for 30 years and never pay back there HECS

One Carrier - all the eggs in one basket.
Didn't seem to stop us with the Sydney and then the Melbourne. There are also a number of other countries out there think it’s valid to operate only one carrier.
If not one large carrier, what a about a few smaller carriers?
http://www.aviationnews.com.au/Current_Issue/0602_PDFs/P7(0206).pdf

The Belgrano was a cruiser, the Argies also had a carrier, only problem was they couldn't take off, lack of wind, to find the British fleet.

I would like to see the RAN operate 4 major surface groups. 1 x Carrier strike (CVF 36 F18E/F/G, 3 E2C, 3 C2, AWD, FFH, FFG, Supply Ship + a Collins) 2 x Anphib (LHD, AWD 12 MRH90 2 x Tiger, FFH, FGG, Supply + Collins) and another surface group (AWD, FFH ,FFG, + Collins). With 2 in overlapping in states of deployment or exercises, 1 in maintenance and 1 on training. At a pinch we would be able deploy 2, with a third to follow at short notice.

As I said before, our recent deployments have been unopposed and we have been very lucky, with the Solomons a bloke in a JCB could have dug up the tarmac, and trapped our initial deployment.

Even F22 is going to be limited to tanking assets or the need to operate from a friendly country. With a carrier or embarked fast jet of some sort, we could provide on the spot air cover, and possibly fleet defence to support a landing. As an island nation, unless we are invaded, anything we do military wise in anger or support is going to be

So we should either pull up stumps like our friends across the ditch, and release that the chances of invasion are slim, and worry about border security a shed load more, or if we want to play with the big boys, then we spend our money wisely, and make sure that we do deploy, no matter where, we can support our own.

Rant over

[Lord Snot]

Originally Posted by JetA_OK

A lot of people are missing the point here - the F22 is not on the table as an option. Uncle Sam doesn't want to share.

Yes they do, that's why I posted the story. There was at least two other threads mentioning the fact they are about to open the F-22 to export.

The initial certification for carrier ops in the USN is in the order of 6 months

Yes, that's because these young turks are still qualifying as up-and-coming knuckleheads. They koalify on the Buckeye first which takes ages, because no one trusts them not to get people killed. Then they have to start all over again on their FA-18, F-14, C-2, S-3, A-6, F-8, A-7, EA-6B, F4U4 or whatever including the conversion.

As for RAFF pilots landing on carriers, this is something they teach in the simulator and regularly refresh on to maintain the USN Day/Night Carr. Qual.

The Hornet sim at Willyworld is a ZFT sim including for for carrier ops and the yanks have acknowledged the RAFF standards meet their carrier qual needs.

This is what comes from having such a small ACG, you can train those few pilots to a much higher standard than the large AFs like the USAF or USN can.

A little-known part of the US doctrine is to allow canuck and aussie hornets to operate off their flat-tops in time of World War to make up for attrition and for political "team" purposes.

This is why the HMAS Melbourne was turned into frying pans a few years back. It was expensive to run and they knew we'd have a de-facto carrier force of much more capable ships.

I have some video footage of a RAFF carrier op but I don't know how to post a link to it.

[Buster Hyman]

Yes, the Belgrano was a cruiser...the point was that it became a focal point for the British & was targeted outside of the exclusion zone. A carrier would be as big a focal point as the Belgrano was &, once it was sunk, you didn't really here from the Argentine Navy again.

Melbourne & Sydney were part of a single carrier fleet, granted, but there is always a risk when those eggs are floating in a single fighting force. If we had lost those carriers in a military conflict, we could only hope that any agressors would come within A4 range of Nowra!

However, if we did have a single carrier group, I would assume that we would have an adequate fall back position should it be lost...as we must have when operating the previous carriers...?

[Dragon79]

Comes down to risk analysis. What is the risk of not having a carrier, against what is the risk of having one carrier.

Once the carrier was sunk, that would be it, we need to call for HELP, but I don't think the NRMA would be called.

Against not having a carrier, true this has been the case since the early 80's, but we've been very lucky on deployments since then, mostly thanks to the professionalism of the men and women in the armed forces, no real thanks to any long term planning or policy decisions.

I'd like to think of a carrier like private health insurance, bloody expensive, and not needed most of the time. But on some occasions it can come in bloody useful, and you thanks heavens you have it. OK pretty crap comparison, I know.

If what the good lord is saying is true than the process for training up our current Hornet pilots to fly of a carrier wouldn't be as big an effort as starting from scratch.

[Lord Snot]

Originally Posted by Dragon79

What is the risk of not having a carrier..........Once the carrier was sunk, that would be it, we need to call for HELP

What are you talking about, we already don't have a carrier. Does that mean as soon as the show kicks off we need to call for help?

Might as well hand over the keys to the bros up north now, then....

[bob55]

Originally Posted by Lord Snot

Yes they do, that's why I posted the story. There was at least two other threads mentioning the fact they are about to open the F-22 to export.
Yes, that's because these young turks are still qualifying as up-and-coming knuckleheads. They koalify on the Buckeye first which takes ages, because no one trusts them not to get people killed. Then they have to start all over again on their FA-18, F-14, C-2, S-3, A-6, F-8, A-7, EA-6B, F4U4 or whatever including the conversion.

As for RAFF pilots landing on carriers, this is something they teach in the simulator and regularly refresh on to maintain the USN Day/Night Carr. Qual.

The Hornet sim at Willyworld is a ZFT sim including for for carrier ops and the yanks have acknowledged the RAFF standards meet their carrier qual needs.

This is what comes from having such a small ACG, you can train those few pilots to a much higher standard than the large AFs like the USAF or USN can.

A little-known part of the US doctrine is to allow canuck and aussie hornets to operate off their flat-tops in time of World War to make up for attrition and for political "team" purposes.

This is why the HMAS Melbourne was turned into frying pans a few years back. It was expensive to run and they knew we'd have a de-facto carrier force of much more capable ships.

I have some video footage of a RAFF carrier op but I don't know how to post a link to it.

I don't normally do this - but it's RAAF, not RAFF.

[Dragon79]

Snot

Believe I have been talking about about supporting deployed forces, with a carrier, through out my posts.

Would also help if you quote me fully.

"What is the risk of not having a carrier, against what is the risk of having one carrier."

We currently accept the risk of not having a carrier. We also accept the risk of not having a space shuttle, but a carrier is what we have been talking about.

Simply because we don't have one at the moment, shouldn't mean we don't explore the option of introducting this capability?

On previous operations, that lack of heavy airlift and anphimbious platforms has been idenified, hence the C17 and the LHD.

I believe that on previous deployments and operations we have been lucky, and having a carrier to provide support, could only be a good thing. I don't think for a minute, given the current state of play in the world, that in years to come, the ADF is going to be busier than it currently is.

[Lodown]

Lord Snot, Uncle Sam may be keen to export the F-22, but I would bet most of the silicon compounds, contoured microscopic surfaces and stealth electronics will have been removed. Still a nice platform.

[Buster Hyman]

most of the silicon compounds, contoured microscopic surfaces and stealth electronics will have been removed

No problem. We'll get the Collins & Seasprite boys on the job!

[Dragon79]

Got to agree about the sea sprite (not the fact that we bought the lemons), it was before the DMO brought in their changes, but since then have been some recent examples of projects being managed, not all that well. Finding out so late about the wedge tail dealy doesn't smell of good project management to me.

The under lying problem I see with the DMO, is that it run like a government department, not run like a business, which I'll argue is the only part of defence that should be running like a business.

From personal experience, I applied for a job back in June 2003, Had an interview in Jan 04 and I am still waiting to hear back from them. Not bitter at all, got a much better job in the private sector, and I am more than happy where I am, although I would have enjoyed working for them.

Although credit where credit is due, the C17 has been expidited and is on its way. Saw a photo the other day of the first one on the assembly line.

[Taildragger67]

I suggest the bit about calling for help was meant to mean that, having put all our eggs in the carrier basket, we'd be left with sod-all other than the carrier, so if that got deep-6ed, we'd have nought left, so would need to skweem for help. Not having gone for a carroer, we have other assets, and losing a frigate doesn't leave the same hole in overall capability as would losing a carrier.

Buster has a good point - once the Belgrano was lost, the 25 May never went to sea as the risk was too high. It may as well have been frying pans. In fact if it had been frying pans, the Argentine forces' overall resources in other areas may have been rather higher. Best advertisement ever that a small power shouldn't get caught in pi55ing contests re carriers.

Numerous RAAF knucks have done USN carrier service as part of exchange rotations so there would be some knowledge in the force. Whether that could be used as a basis for qual'ing the rest of the RAAF knuck pilot body, I can't comment on.

Not really much need for staging via a carrier, anyway - NW Cape, Cocos, Diego, your friendly Gulf base - maybe a few in-flight top-ups to keep you awake and you're there. And if said Gulf base was unavailable, we'd probably want every asset close to home because by then, they'd be needed at home. That said, maybe knowledge of carrier landings might be useful in case of emergency where a flat-top might be the nearest friendly asset.

Old M8, I think recent events at AMB reminded us about the Pig's hook. But I'd be interested to see a Pig doing deck landings. The F111-B (intended for USN - Buster) had shorter wings than the -C and strengthened undercarriage; USN did indeed lose int (wing carry-through strengthening probs?) and went for the Tomcat/Phoenix combo. Dunno that the -C has a cat strop, either... so it might be able to get down, but the u/c would be cactus and you wouldn't be able to shoot it back off the front again.

Dragon, Mate I think the reason we ended up with the old Sydney and Melbourne was that they were pretty cheap, being surplus to the RN's needs after WW2; it was also in the Brits' interests to have us, having them (before but more especially after the pull-back from East of Aden). They were also relatively much cheaper to operate than a modern carrier (given the required size of carrier, fuel, etc. and especially the equipment you throw off the front). When the costs did start to bite, one was converted into a troop-ship. Then, note that the Melb operated only 6-8 A4s - not really much bite for all that expense and risk.

The other side of the coin is that no-one likely to threaten us is able to delpoy forces such as would need a carrier to see them off. If Indonesia tried to take Heard Island (eg. for resource purposes) - could they project their forces that far? Could we not see off their support vessels with Collinses? Even China is carrier-less. And if they turned up at Heard, even if we had a small carrier, we'd probably be better off just saying giving them the keys .

By the way, my Snotty friend, it's RAAF - Royal Australian Air Force. Not sure what RAFF would stand for??

[Dragon79]

Business like, OK so maybe not the best term, or maybe there is no correct term, or its to late and the footys about to start and I can't be bother thinking of it. As you have pointed our they are a special case.

What I was trying to get at, was comparing it to a "business" that delivers the right product to customer, on time on budget and to the requirements, the end result. In this case the customers are the 3 services and that would make all of us the sharholders.

I release as a share holder of this particular "company", I am not likely to see a return. I accept that as the price for the freedoms I enjoy, and I make sure I thank those good people who are providing this. What I do expect though, is that the company provides the right equipment, so things where ever to go tits up, the customers won't be requesting a large sum of compensation.

The continual impression I get as an observer (thats all I am now thanks for nothing DMO) is thats its a continual cycle of cock up, then implement a quick fix or new methodology, change some managers and start all over again. (****e sounds just like where I work now) And I guess that comes back to the underlying culture within the organisation. In the DMO's case thats run like a government department, with that government mentality.

I know it isn't all the DMOs fault, what can they do is some fool comes a long and says, hey I've got a great idea, we know of these air frames lying around, and if we stuff in all these fancy switches and lights in, it would be great. Either that, or we've heard of this great new proposal for new platform, "has it every been used before", well no but it sounds great. But then again if there fool enough to say, sure no probs I know a mate who can knock it up, no probs.

Thats why I personally think the A330, the current option I've preferred option I've seen for the AWD, wedgetail and to a certain extent JSF, are all risks to be taking, un-proven platforms, the old tiger is bit of an exceptiona as the frogs were surposed to be up and running now. I honestly hope I am proven wrong, but I did manage to pick the swans to win at the start of last year.

[Dragon79]

Taildragger67

Agree that there is no one to threaten us, as I said in an earlier post. So do we pull up stumps, buy a token air force, rent out some land to our US friends, and plow the left over money into border security and tax cuts?

I think that the current policy of both major parties isn't this and therefore we should be asking, if we are going to deploy our troops OS, what do we need to make sure we can get the job done.

And the worse case is we have to gone alone, and we have to go into a hostile environment, what do we therefore need to get the job done.

[Lord Snot]

So do we pull up stumps, buy a token air force, rent out some land to our US friends, and plow the left over money into border security and tax cuts

No. They might not be threatening but they're all clamouring away trying to gain the upper economic hand in the region. Miitary power still has an influence on economics. We don't need any of the bros to the north keeping the initiative.

The above-posted proposed equipment purchase will help ensure that for Aust.

[Dragon79]

I'd love to go shopping, just let me have the credit card!