PioneerHmmm… While the proposal has merit, I think that the main two problems were the lack of sufficient maneuverability (it was designed as a strike aircraft, after all)
I do not recall there being the ‘requirement for maneuverbility’ in the ‘FAD’ ‘Misseleer’ RfP?
PioneerIf China was to go down the Aircraft Carrier line (which I think it will!), it will have to dedicate a large amount of its Navy budget towards a battle group / escorts to support this carrier(s).
For if China does introduce aircraft carriers, one can guess that this (these) pride of the PLAN will become number one target priorities of the US Navy!
If this happens, I think the US Navy will be very sorry that they have narrowed its carrier-squadrons types with not replacing and disbanding the likes of Medium Attack (A-6 Intruder), Fixed-wing ASW (S-3 Viking) and the F-14 Tomcat.
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerCurrently neither Japan nor South Korea have anything like that. Comments have been made about fixing ski-jumps to the Dokdo and 16DHH classes, but they’d only be able to operate a handful of jets at best – a bit of a waste, really.
As I said above, I doubt they’d be able to operate enough to warrant it.
What’s more important in my mind are things like the length of the deck, size of the hangers and lifts, etc.
One must remember that Sth Korea would have to spend a long time learning the integrate processes of carrier operations in all aspects, while Japan itself has been out of the carrier game for so many decades that it would virtually have to start from scratch!
So although these ships may appear to be both small and limited in operational capability, they will provide imperative and cost effective stepping stone in carrier development, building and operating a true carrier design.
After all you only need to look at Thailand for example – it blindly purchased a otherwise effective and capable light aircraft carrier (built by Spain), but had no idea or experience in operating carriers. Instead Thai Navy use it more as an expensive Royal Yacht! – What a waist!!!!!!
Be assured Sth Korea and Japan will not make this mistake!
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerPersonally, I have never understood why the RAN selected the ANZAC Frigates.
No.1 my friend – Do not attempt to think what the Australian Government and military think!
I have been doing this for to many years now, and it hurts too much – and there is no light at the end of their rainbow.
We have a system in place were every so many years each service, be it Army, Navy and Air Force (and I think sometimes it should be Salvation Army) have a go at being in charge of the rock show.
When each of these services are in the big chair they seem to go for broke on purchasing priority for their own service, instead of the interest of the ADF as a whole.As she already had the very capable Adelaide Class. With the exception of the larger 5 in gun on the Anzac. The Adelaide is much better in anti-submarine, anti-surface, and anti-air warfare. Further, by purchasing more Adelaide class the overall cost in support, logistics, and maintenance would have be lower! Seems like a costly duplication……..:eek:
No.2 I agree with you 110% my friend
The ANAC class design would have been a far greater capability if it had have been purchased and built as it was intended – As a Frigate, and armed and equipped as a Frigate!
But the Australian Government decided to build possibly the largest and most expensive patrol boats in any navy’s history
For the Government of the day decided as a cost saving measure (using the pitiful excuse that the MEKO modular system would allow for easy upgrading in the 10 year warning that Australia would receive in the advent of hostility with someone in the region) to only equip these over-sized Patrol Boats with a 127mm DP gun mount (and the troubles we had with New Zealand on picking a gun caliber – 57mm, 76mm or 127mm????)
We then decided that these new Frigates could go without a helicopter for more that 5 years or so, as we chose a design that was not SH-60B Seahawk capable.
When we did decide on a helo, we went for a completely different type of ship-board helo – the infamous Seasprite project!!
What is it about 8+ years know, and the Government of the day has put a couple of ESSM on board – ‘wow talk about a good supplement for the FFG-7’s!
So after all these years we have a so-called cost effective Patrol Boat, those still lacks- an effective ASW/Anti-ship capability helo
An effective CIWS
Anti-ship missile capability
Oh yes but it has a big gun!!!
Yes we should have stuck with the Oliver Hazard Perry Class, but gone that little further, like that of Taiwan and pushed the design to its limits, to make a good design even better – especially after operational experience the RAN had gained with operating the design.
P.S. the only issue I have ever had with the Oliver Hazard Perry Class design was it’s operationally dangers ‘single shaft’ arrangement!!!
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerAnybody have any idea what the first front line application of the Vulcan rotary cannon was? I have some ideas but have no way to cross reference at this time. And on that note, how many other aircraft have had this cannon? My list so far comprises:
F-105 (?)
I’m not sure if the F-106 or the F-101 used this gun and if the 101 did, it might be the first. Judging by roll outs maybe the BUFF was the first, but again i need the help.
Yes my friend – the F-105 Thnderchief did carry and use the Vulcan gun. Infact the F-105 Thunderchief in became the first operational aircraft to carry the M61 Vulcan in 1958.
The F-106A did get fitted with the Vulcan near the end of its career it was even given a project name ‘Project Sharp Shooter’. Before that time the Delta Dart was a ‘Missileer’
As for the F-101 Voodoo – It did not carry the Vulcan
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerThere is a premium in costs for building it in Australia, mostly because the capability has to created pretty much from scratch (again) and the skilled trademen necessary for the job are also in high demand from the resource industry, which is experiencing a boom, thanks to demand for natural resources.
Unicorn
Yes this is a great worry my friend!
It amazes me to no end that we as individual states compete against one another continuously for naval ship-building contracts at the cost of national interest and our defense.
For just as with our meager aerospace industry, we build a industry capability and train specialized skills to build an individual ship, aircraft or vehicle, and just as this given project is winding up, the next project in line, that would otherwise carry-over this skill-base created, is put up for tender for all states to bid.
I think it is long past the joke that in Australia’s defense interest, that we designate and specialize one ship-building facility, one aerospace facility etc etc…….
This way money on infrastructure, training and continuing skills will be kept for repairs, upgrades and new projects.
But what would an Assault Pioneer know?
PioneerAnother good question is- Will the RAN get the planes or will the RAAF. Current law and operational status places all combat fixed wing ops under RAAF control, this was one reason we sold off our Skyhawks back in 83, The RAAF felt we didn’t have a need for those aircraft since we had the more powerfull F-111’s and the Mirage with the Hornets coming soon, these planes were deemed excessive to needs. A similar story with the S-2 Tracker fleet
I spoke to a gentleman a few years ago – he was ex-RAN with carrier aviation for most of his career.
He said that once the RAN lost the ‘Melbourne’ with no replacement, the officials in the RAN stated that the RAN would take about 10 years to train and regain its skills at what it once was in carrier operations!
Although I think this may be less – if one takes into consideration that any future RAN/Australian carrier-type ship will not be equipped with the likes of arrester-gear and catapults!
PioneerAfter the debacle of the Collins Class sub’s and the Seasprite helicopters, I think this had something to do with the Government choice of the Spanish design.
I for one favor the Spanish designs
I only hope that the Australian Government sees the light and allows the RAN to purchase AV-8B Harrier Plus’s or some S/VTOL F-35B`s to operate from these two new amphibs! (But I will not hold my breath!!!!)
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerWasn’t Australia offered the Mirage IVK as well when the TSR.2 was cancelled? (The IVK would have had a fuselage stretch, Spey engines, enlarged intakes, and eight hardpoints per wing)
I am so thankful, for the RAAF that they did not go with the Mirage IVK idea, for
1/ its range was inadequate
2/ its payload was inadequate (unless nuclear!)
3/ imagine what political restrictions that the French would have put on its
use (Just look at what the RAAF had to put up with when they considered
using-deploying Mirage III to Vietnam!)
4/ It would be obsolete way before the F-111 or TRS-2 design
I think a de-carrier-ized (loss the wing folding, with a one-piece and ‘wet’
one) North American A-5B/C Vigilante would have been good (cheaper and less risky than the F-111 or TRS-2 proved to be!. But then again I would be veryhappy if the RAAF pushed for ‘FB-111H`s’)
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerHats of to India, for having the intelligence to know that the FRS.2 Sea Harrier still has combat potential in today’s environment.
It is a quantum leap over the FRS.1 Sea Harrier, regardless!
Its beyond visual range engagement capability will be most welcomed, although I do not know how India would go acquiring Aim-120 AMRAAM`s!
I say India should go for its push to get FSR.2`s, till it gets its new carriers, equipped with MiG-29K into service!
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerI think it a great pitty that the Political and military alliance that the British and American’s shared at the time of the Cold War, never allowed these two countries to jointly develop a replacement for both their American B-52 and Britain’s Victor/Vulcan bombers.
This joint effort may have lead to something very impressive, effective and still in service today.
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerFirstly I must state that I was always for the Lynx – I am ashamed to say, I do not know what makes the Australian Defense Force ADF tick at times!
They have had the uncanny ability to take a good idea (and already working weapons platform and through a spanner into it, to turn it into an over cost lemon – i.e. – Collins Class sub, Seasprite, Jindalee OHR
Secondly – I think we have made a big mistake in failing to go on with the Australian / Malaysian Joint OPV purchase, or an all Australian OPV. For although the new Armadale Class patrol boats are an improvement over the Fremantle Class PB`s, they are still lacking in endurance and combat capability.
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerYou often see French, Brazilian, and Argentinean do touch and go take off and landings with USN Aircraft Carriers. Yet, they rarely make complete arrested landings or cat shots off each others Carriers??? If, they capable why don’t they???:(
It could be because the aircraft that France, Brazil and Argi`s use are smaller and lighter than those used by the US Navy, that the catapults used aboard modern US carriers are to powerful or catapult crews are not familiar with their weights ???
Just a wild guess
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerThere’s a good photo of this setup in the WarbirdTech F-104 volume.
Hi SOC – Thanks for the info
Can you possibly scan and post the pic
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerDid the IDF-II getting anymore thrust for its two engines?
A very good point my friend!
With the added weight of the conformal tanks & their drag, it’s bound to loss some power-to-weight performance, which will not be healthy ‘were and when’ they come across the likes of the Chinese (PRC) Su-27 & new J-10.
As did the performance of the F-16C suffered in performance, when compared to the original F-16A.
I am very pleased to hear that Taiwan is going down the path of independent arms industry. For it has learned the hard way that it can not always rely on the U.S.!
Maybe it would be a logical thing for the likes of Taiwan and South Korea start working together on military systems. Know that would lead to some very interesting weapons and systems!!!
Regards
Pioneer
Sign In
