airliner-civil-aircraft-modeller.com

There seems to be a increase in interest in acquiring the F-35B for use on the new LHD's - right from the top of government. This would add a quantum leap in capability for our defence forces - seamlessly integrating with our defence partners in combined operations around the world in the future. I firmly believe this is the way to go. Having a fixed wing airpower component added makes the LHD's far less vulnerable and far more capable. Australia will certainly be able to project power right around our region.

UK's defence is getting very excited with the commissioning of HMS Queen Elizabeth 2 - their biggest carrier ever built by BAE (fitting out our LHD's presently).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sih8hUV3Y28&list=UUs9HTncy2FLGgj00WY2k2JQ#t=12

Some cool CGI of what op's on-board HMS Queen Liz will look like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN-j7aRZ4S4&list=UUs9HTncy2FLGgj00WY2k2JQ&index=14

There is a interesting article written by a one time RN engineer this month in Aust Aviation on how the LHD's could be modified to include the F-35's - not without challenges but certainly doable. Interesting that he does mention how well the Aussies who migrated over to the UK after the demise of HMAS Melbourne worked in the RN. He believes that there is still is a decent knowledge base here for fixed wing a/c carrier op's and the writer also believes it's certainly possible to incorporate the F-35B into the LHD should the nation want to do this.

There is currently a race to build a/c carriers in our region - India and China will eventually operate three each and Japan is well ahead developing their own which will no doubt include fixed wing strike a/c in the future. This does remind me a little of the "Dreadnought" era pre-WW1 - every one had to have a battleship!

Will this nations' next F-35 purchase be for the "Bee" model in a few years time I wonder?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwMvEjhoMWU

You know I was a supporter of a carrier/landing ship and with it a fixed wing aircraft that could operate off it, but I'm not so sure now. I realise that there are other countries in our region building carriers and a carrier is an offensive weapon, but why does Australia require the same offensive capability, rather than a counter measure to other countries offensive power? I think we should be concentrating on defensive rather than offensive weapons. Besides which, Japan is an ally, India is of no concern and it's only China you need to worry about, but in the case that China started shooting, the US would be involved.

The greatest defense Australia has is the sea. I think we should get rid of that amphibious assault ship and the air warfare destroyers (now running over budget of course) and invest in a larger hunter-killer submarine force. We have F-35 now and if it all works like it the sales brochures say it will (yet to actually be proven), you can combine the two greatest threats to surface ships; aircraft and submarines into a deadly defensive force.

_BlackHawk_ wrote:You know I was a supporter of a carrier/landing ship and with it a fixed wing aircraft that could operate off it, but I'm not so sure now. I realise that there are other countries in our region building carriers and a carrier is an offensive weapon, but why does Australia require the same offensive capability, rather than a counter measure to other countries offensive power? I think we should be concentrating on defensive rather than offensive weapons. Besides which, Japan is an ally, India is of no concern and it's only China you need to worry about, but in the case that China started shooting, the US would be involved.

The greatest defense Australia has is the sea. I think we should get rid of that amphibious assault ship and the air warfare destroyers (now running over budget of course) and invest in a larger hunter-killer submarine force. We have F-35 now and if it all works like it the sales brochures say it will (yet to actually be proven), you can combine the two greatest threats to surface ships; aircraft and submarines into a deadly defensive force.

First of all, the LHD's are not carriers. Carriers are also not just offensive weapons. They are a very powerful responsive tool for both the government in peacetime and in war. In peacetime, carriers are very much a political tool - the ol' gunboat tactic. Not much point having a "carrier" if it ain't got any teeth! POWER PROJECTION. What you suggest about getting rid of the bigger naval surface assets pretty well goes against the doctrine of all the other navies around the world - what, you're right and they're all wrong? Germans tried concentrating on subs and that didn't work out too well for them.

There are hundreds of possible scenarios that could possibly happen over the next 40 years, in this region or others where our armed forces could be involved. Australians have fought across the globe over the last 100+ years. You have only mentioned a couple of possible scenarios. For example, terrorist training camps could need to be taken out, located on some remote Indonesian Island, somewhere in Africa, Pakistan, etc, etc. The possibility exists of these being defended by for example some 37mm AAA, too heavy for the ARH Tigers to handle by themselves. Troops in contact may be in dire need of air support - something to drop a few JDAM's right near by. Armed helicopters offer very limited air support. Aussies have been caught short before with no fire support/assistance from other coalition forces - remember the Dutch Apache incident not giving support to our SAS in contact in Afghanistan? Having our own aerial fire support gives a great deal more flexibility to Aussie commanders in the theatre. As is the case, carriers usually are first to react - case in point, the current shite going down in Iraq. It's all about flexibility and response time. Our armed forces may have to fight fires on a smaller scale in this region in the future. A carrier is a mobile airfield that can operate in international waters - no permission required!

Any creative mind could dream up many more potential scenarios that could possibly occur over the next 40 years. There are many other countries that could possibly descend into chaos in the next few years. Australia may need to be involved as part of a multi-national force to counter this treat - to pull our weight as we have had to in the past.

Who foresaw a region stretching from Libya all the way to Afghanistan descending into chaos a few years ago? This region will be a mess for at least another 20 years now. Are you telling me everything is going to be hunky-dory in our region for the next 40+ years? We have the LHD's and AWD's and it is right that they have the added flexibility of bringing the F-35 into the picture - a huge force multiplier. F-35's will for example be able to target and fire weapons from the AWD's - hundreds of miles from the carrier task group - point, click - KABOOM!

Our government has access to the most up to date intelligence and futurist think tanks and need to project many years ahead to likely scenarios that could threaten our way of life. They are currently investigating the possibility of using F-35's off the LHD's - not to spend more tax payer money nut because they see the likelihood of this requirement being needed in the future. There are major challenges coming up this century - food security will be a major one as the world population continues to increase with fish stocks decreasing, available land for food production decreasing. This region is going through a arms race - why? So we just huddle back in our corner of the globe and hope some subs will keep our sea lanes open? Our alliance with USA demands we do more than that.

Well, maybe we shouldn't spend our resources helping other countries. You don't need a landing ship to take out a terrorist camp, nor an air warfare destroyer. As for fish stocks dwindling, those alarmist ideals are spread by the same people who preach the fraud of global warming, so that's about how much attention you should give them. With regard to Australia, our fishing industry is under utilised and one of the most expensively regulated in the world. So relax, the only threat to your tuna sandwich is the environmental alarmism of distortions, delusions and outright lies that threatens our food supply.

_BlackHawk_ wrote:Well, maybe we shouldn't spend our resources helping other countries. You don't need a landing ship to take out a terrorist camp, nor an air warfare destroyer. As for fish stocks dwindling, those alarmist ideals are spread by the same people who preach the fraud of global warming, so that's about how much attention you should give them. With regard to Australia, our fishing industry is under utilised and one of the most expensively regulated in the world. So relax, the only threat to your tuna sandwich is the environmental alarmism of distortions, delusions and outright lies that threatens our food supply.

I was giving one example just off the top of my head - one of potentially hundreds that could pop up in the next 40 years. Of course you are entitled to your opinion as to whether or not our country should come to the assistance of others. Personally, I think that is a good thing in general - does it always work out for the better, no not always. We are part of a global community, tied by both alliances and treaty and our country has obligations due to these. Getting off topic, but surely you accept there are finite resources on the planet? More people, less resources to go around. Economic growth cannot continue infinitum - there's just only so much "stuff" here on this rock. What I am getting at is there will be more pressure to secure "resources" in the future - we are seeing this right now in the Spratly Islands, plus the argy bargy between Japan and China over those little Islands between their countries, etc. These stoushes will become more frequent and possibly more violent - that's my spin on things. Why else is Asia arming up?

Don't eat tuna either - too full of heavy metals!

I really don't think our defense force has a clue about what they're doing. Continued botched projects and massive costs over runs doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their decision making.

Actually, food is one of the least finite resources on Earth...and don't say oil. There's so much oil around that if OPEC didn't restrict supply they would devalue it! As for heavy metals in fish, yeh, another alarmist distortion of the facts designed to scare the crap out of people, but it's found wanting with even the most basic research.

_BlackHawk_ wrote:I really don't think our defense force has a clue about what they're doing.

Well Brad may I suggest you get of your arse and join the ADF then.....you clearly know more than anyone else, so maybe you could put that vast knowledge base of yours to good use and help save the ADF from it's self .
TOR

tor lives wrote:

_BlackHawk_ wrote:I really don't think our defense force has a clue about what they're doing.

Well Brad may I suggest you get of your arse and join the ADF then.....you clearly know more than anyone else, so maybe you could put that vast knowledge base of yours to good use and help save the ADF from it's self .
TOR

Maybe I could be defense minister. Would you like to donate to my campaign?

_BlackHawk_ wrote:

tor lives wrote:

_BlackHawk_ wrote:I really don't think our defense force has a clue about what they're doing.

Well Brad may I suggest you get of your arse and join the ADF then.....you clearly know more than anyone else, so maybe you could put that vast knowledge base of yours to good use and help save the ADF from it's self .
TOR

Maybe I could be defense minister. Would you like to donate to my campaign?

Yeah.....sign me up (god help us )
I guess you could always wait for me to die then hope to inherit my $$$
TOR