Aussies F-18 training on USN aircraft carrier

People keep forgetting that the entire population of Australia is similar to that of New York, spread out over an area as large as the continental United States.

The manpower contraints will be the reason that the ADF is not capable of growing much larger than its current size.

Anything that requires significant manpower increases is a non-starter. That is one of the reasons the RAN declined the offer of first the Kidds, then later the Flight 1 Ticonderoga’s.

Unicorn

Would be interesting as there are a few laying around. However as I understand it they are pretty thoroughly worn out by the time we disgard them so I don’t know how useful they’d be.

And the manning requirements are impossible for the RAN to meet, & the operating cost is too high, & the air group is insupportably large, etc., etc.

Excellent post. You should actually write articles on Oz,mate.

What do you make of Kopp painting the F-22 as necessary to keep up with the evolved Flanker threat?

I do, I have been writing for defence publications for almost two decades.

Kopp is an alarmist with his own agendas. He was pushing the F111 partly because he has a pecunary interest in its continued service.

He has been briefed by the RAAF on the background to the F35 buy, why it is the right aircraft for Australia, how it can overcome the Flanker threat (much of which is in his own mind) and that there is little to no chance of the US making the F22 available for export, either now or in the future.

Despite that, he then turns around, decries the RAAF as idiots for buying the F35 and states that the only aircraft for the RAAF is the F22, despite it not being on the market.

The man is a tool, he is now not welcome in the halls of Russell Offices because of it.

Unicorn

Maybe somebody in Australia is covertly considering trying to get their hands on a second-hand US carrier once the new CVNs start coming online?

Would be interesting as there are a few laying around. However as I understand it they are pretty thoroughly worn out by the time we disgard them so I don’t know how useful they’d be.

What about 3 x LHD’s. Then Australia could surge 2 at a time. One providing troops and amphib stuff, the other functioning as a carrier.

I imagine the potential implosion of Indonesia, PNG or East Timor gives ADF commanders a lot more sleepless nights than the Flanker family ever will. To me the real danger for the ADF wouldn’t be a conventional war, which they’re well equipped to fight, but the potential of a couple of hundred million people in a country tailor made for insurgency melting down on Australia’s door step must be an awful lot more worrying, as it’d be difficult for Australia not to be affected by it, if nothing else imagine the refugee exodus.
On the Flanker family, it’s important not to get too carried away, yes it is a superb fighter, still one of the finest fighters money can buy in Su30MKI form, but it’s not a super plane immune to all rivals, you don’t have to look to the F22 for an effective rival, the Rafale and Typhoon are already effective counters in terms of flight performance, whilst the super Hornet has a state of the art combat system no Flanker driver would relish going against. If you sort of grafted the combat system of a super Hornet onto a Typhoon or Rafale then you’d have a fighter that totally outclassed the Flanker IMO. So when guys like Kopp claim Australia must have the F22 as some countries in Asia have Flankers he’s blowing out of his ass. And that’s before going into tech support, training, tactics etc., this is excellent for the Indian flankers, I’m not so sure about many of the other Asian air forces using the type.

Excellent post. You should actually write articles on Oz,mate.

What do you make of Kopp painting the F-22 as necessary to keep up with the evolved Flanker threat?

The ‘Region’ is leaving us behind though in matters of conventional warfare capability, equipment, power-projection and skills.

Regards
Pioneer

It depends on what you call the region.

If you stretch it up to Japan, China and South Korea, or North West to India, then we are not in a competitive race with those countries, nor do we seek to be.

However Australia spends more than the rest of South East Asia (South of Korea, China and Japan) combined on defence. We have to, we are a small population of 21 million scaattered across an area bigger than all of Europe from London to Moscow, St Petersberg to Lisbon. We have to have technological capabilities to offset the twin tyranny’s of distance and demographics.

The rest of the region south of the big three (PRC, ROC & Japan) are fully aware of the vast technological and capability gulf which seperates Australia and the rest of South East Asia, why do you think they constantly exercise with us? Because Australia is seen as one of the arbiters of the Status Quo between regional nations.

The ADF and the politicians are aware that we are not likely to engage in a major high tech shooting war, at least not in the next decade, unless it is due to treaty obligations such as a DPRK invasion of the South.

That said, one of the reasons for that is that we have the capability to defend Australia and its regional interests in the face of most potential threats, and it is well understood throughout the region.

One of the main guarantees of that is the preferential access to US capabilities, including technology, intelligence, war stocks and diplomatic support. One of the reasons we receive this is because the US sees Australia as one of its very few reliable allies.

Our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are part of our payment towards accessing those capabilities.

We do not act like a world power, we act like a capable regional power, with the capabilities to back it up, now and into the future.

Unicorn

People, do some of you actually think about what you are posting or do you post first, think later?

The entire damned RAN is approximately 11,000 personnel.

Exactly how, pray tell, are they going to man an aircraft carrier when we have issues currently manning the submarine and surface fleet?

Or don’t small things like reality intrude into your idle daydreams?

Oh, and Pioneer, I am not a fan of Costello, but the governnment of which he is a member have or are funding three new Air Warfare Destroyers, two new amphibs, 14 Armidale patrol boats, an interum tanker, new maritime helicopters, upgrades to the FFG’s and Collins and a number of other major programs.

That’s without the C17’s, Rhinos, F35’s, additional Bushmasters, M1A2’s, MRH, Tigers, C-27s and a host of other defence procurement…

Before you throw too many stones their way on defence matters, I suggest you have a good look at someone like Canada and realise that the current government, while they have much else to answer for, is doing all right by the ADF.

Unicorn

I hear what you are saying mate!

But of cause they have to spend big on all these new projects, for they have over-committed us to the point that the ADF is near braking point, with both retention and new recruitment.
It is good – no arguments here with me about these acquisitions.
But it’s the fact that the ADF has been committed and geared to this so called ‘war on terrorism’, for as little Johnny has publicly stated ‘we are the (self claimed!) sheriff (or was it deputy?) of the region’.
A lot of this equipment is ‘long’ overdue. (How long has the RAAF asked and wanted an AEW/AWACS aircraft? how long has the Army needed a SPG/H? how long has the RAAF needed a Caribou replacement, how long has the RAN needed a Fremantle class patrol-boat replacement? these projects are not new to the ADF’s needs!) It’s just that this Government has committed us balls-and-all to this Regional sheriff thing, for before this they had many years to do what they have done in only the past couple of years.

But what this Government is trying to project to the world – is far beyond the ADF’s size and capability and want. Like Canada, Australia is not and will not be a world power!
So we should stop acting like one!
The ‘Region’ is leaving us behind though in matters of conventional warfare capability, equipment, power-projection and skills.

Regards
Pioneer

I still wouldn’t rule out the possibility of RAAF Super Hornets operating from friendly Carriers. As most Military Operations are with allies and close friends. Further, as the US has often found out a friendly airfield is not always available or even in practical range. So, Carriers could provide a platform not currently available. While, I don’t consider it likely…………its
possible.:rolleyes:

As well as the manpower there is the investment in the support infra structure (dry docks and ship repair facilities big enough to handle a USN CVN), the nuclear engineering infra structure (and these days cross fertilising with civil nuclear programs is harder than it was in the 50’s), the air groups to make them worthwhile (could any other air force out there other than US forces actually support an embarked air group on the scale of a Nimitz without draining their other responsibilities to the point of impotence?) and ultimately it’d all be for a ship that has already served out it’s intended useful life. Just not realistic. Write Australia out as that is a dream, this idea wouldn’t make any sense for France or the UK who both want large carriers and have a pretty big budget ear marked for large carrier ops.

…………the only problem is you need 5,500 young salior to man it!:eek:

Quite. Would mean mothballing much of the rest of the RAN to find the crew.

One of the reasons the UK has said in the past it wouldn’t accept an ex-USN carrier or amphib is the manning requirement. It’s not just the size, but the manpower level per ton, which is higher than all but our oldest ships, & huge compared to the new ones. Old ships, with old, manpower-intensive equipment.

People, do some of you actually think about what you are posting or do you post first, think later?

The entire damned RAN is approximately 11,000 personnel.

Exactly how, pray tell, are they going to man an aircraft carrier when we have issues currently manning the submarine and surface fleet?

Or don’t small things like reality intrude into your idle daydreams?

Oh, and Pioneer, I am not a fan of Costello, but the governnment of which he is a member have or are funding three new Air Warfare Destroyers, two new amphibs, 14 Armidale patrol boats, an interum tanker, new maritime helicopters, upgrades to the FFG’s and Collins and a number of other major programs.

That’s without the C17’s, Rhinos, F35’s, additional Bushmasters, M1A2’s, MRH, Tigers, C-27s and a host of other defence procurement…

Before you throw too many stones their way on defence matters, I suggest you have a good look at someone like Canada and realise that the current government, while they have much else to answer for, is doing all right by the ADF.

Unicorn

Australia and Usa have good relations, so USNavy could give an old carrier and some F18 (You already have some in service). It will be cheaper and very convenient.
You have money+You have F-18+ You’ll have brand new escort Aegis frigates, so it lacks only a carrier to complete the naval group.
🙂

…………the only problem is you need 5,500 young salior to man it!:eek:

Hay that clown we have as a Federal treasurer – Peter Costello, announced that the Australian Government (or ‘I’ as he likes to say!) has a surplus of $17 Billion dollars
America could give us a carrier for one $ dollar and we would stuff it up or use it as the largest helicopter carrier in the world. For we have a few helicopters, and purchasing carrier aircraft would be too expensive.
But then again the Australian Government would purchase French Rafals, just so we would have to carry out a lengthy and expensive overhaul of the ship to operate them!

Cynical I know!
But Australian I am!

Pioneer

Australia and Usa have good relations, so USNavy could give an old carrier and some F18 (You already have some in service). It will be cheaper and very convenient.
You have money+You have F-18+ You’ll have brand new escort Aegis frigates, so it lacks only a carrier to complete the naval group.
🙂

They went through this with that idea floated of giving away the JFK to NATO, even if the USN gives away one of their carriers for free there is no other navy on the planet they’d consider giving them to with the resources to operate them, given the crew requirements and cost of air ops on that sort of scale, and if it’s a nuke the problems are even greater. Nice idea, but it’d probably make a lot more sense for Australia to spend $3-4Billion on a new build ship like CVF or PA2 than accept a USN CVN, daft as that may sound.

Hay that clown we have as a Federal treasurer – Peter Costello, announced that the Australian Government (or ‘I’ as he likes to say!) has a surplus of $17 Billion dollars
America could give us a carrier for one $ dollar and we would stuff it up or use it as the largest helicopter carrier in the world. For we have a few helicopters, and purchasing carrier aircraft would be too expensive.
But then again the Australian Government would purchase French Rafals, just so we would have to carry out a lengthy and expensive overhaul of the ship to operate them!

Cynical I know!
But Australian I am!

Pioneer

But only if the taxi wants to go the same way…

True the USN would want control over any RAAF operating within a Carrier Air Wing…………..:cool:

The outside chance is that the RAAF may procure some of the STOVL examples of the Lightning II for operations of the new Canberra class amphibs. Said operations being undertaken at some significant detriment to the Canberra’s principal designed function, which is to embark large numbers of helicopters and troops for amphibious operations.

A good point and one of the main misconceptions of how many view these type designs. Many view the newer generation of LPH/LHD as a cheap CVL with the added bonus of an amphibious capability, when actually they’re amphibious assault ships that can be made to operate STOVL fighters if required at the expense of their primary function in most cases. Ships like the Juan Carlos, Canberra, Ocean etc. are excellent assault platforms, but they’re not USN style LPH’s that can operate Harriers and in the future F35B’s at the same time as fulfilling their primary role as assault vessels, and most operators of the type don’t even pretend it can be done. This isn’t an attack on the ships as I’m a huge fan of the vessels, but they have to be viewed as what they are, not what people might wish they are. Similar to the CVF, the RN has aimed at what they can realistically achieve and accepted a far more conservative ship than a USN CV, OK I’m sure they’d love a USN style CV but it’s beyond their means and capabilities and so they’d gone for something that does meet their needs and is (only just) affordable to build, operate and support.

The RAN hardly has the manpower or budget for three Aegis Destroyers. Let alone a Super Carrier the size of the CVF or Nimtz Class.

I quite agree, my comment was aimed more at the suggestion of a country buying or leasing an ex-USN CVN, and even if the USN gave them away for free (perhaps as a way of keeping the hulls active to relieve pressure on USN carriers, the basic idea behind that suggestion of transferring JFK to NATO) they’d still be prohibitively expensive for any other navy. If the RAN want maritime air power then a F35B on their new LHD’s is the only realistic choice. The RN would almost certainly see a far heavier drain on resources to try and operate a USN CVN even if they got it for free than they’ll ever have to pay into the CVF program over the life of the vessels.

It’s more that it would give them the ability to have a presence across the Pacific, more than just the Oceania part of it. It’s just an option, but in particular it would give Australia the ability to send a squadron to ops in Afghanistan, from the safety of a USN carrier. As it was, they sent a Hornet unit to Diego Garcia, but that was just to provide some theoretical air protection to the base there. I say theoretical since there wasn’t really any air threat, so the aircraft, as far as I know, didn’t venture anywhere near hostile skies.

Basically, it gives Australia the ability to sabre rattle a little louder, and further out than just Indonesia – perhaps Australia can join the long list of nations claiming the Spratly Islands! :diablo:

But only if the taxi wants to go the same way…