tiddlesHi Ja , I am sure that the Kiwis on the board will have a bit to say about their new IPV, It has not been in use long enough to get much feedback ,but as they say ,no news is good news. If it was the new MRV Cantebury I am sure that the Kiwis would have really plenty to say as it is the brunt of many criticisms particularly on Defence Talk Forum. The IPV is in many ways very similar to our own [RAN] new Armidale Class which has had mainly good reviews. A piece of info for OZ members which most probably know , the second series of Sea Patrol has finished shooting but I dont know the date it will start, supposedly it was shot using the Armidale Class HMAS Broome for some scenes.Link for those who are really bored.
http://seapatrol.ninemsn.com.au/
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4854&page=42
Tiddles
tiddlesDoes the Rafale have any hope for a export order? 😮
Here is a link to a good story concerning Rafale export problems,at least they seem to have sold a few to Libya
http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2008/0225/082.html
Tiddles
tiddlesI thought the U.S. navy were buying more and if this is true then our order would suit them wouldnt it.
Certainly a reasonable assumption Jim, but Boeing already have the Navy contracts to built Shs sewn up. You can bet that Boeing will say that the planes that they are now building for Australia eg. dont fit the USN schedule or more likely that new sub contractors had to be bought on board to fulfil the Oz contract etc. anything to firm the building as definately only for the Australian order. I guess to be honest I dont really know, but Boeing wont let go easily ,there are billions of dollars at stake here, above & extra to the USN contracts they already have . I would probably be fighting to hold onto the order myself if Billions were at stake. [Well in my case then, even a few bucks would be worth fighting for:D 😀 😀 ]
Tiddles
tiddlesThe Australian
Warplane firm’s delivery
February 07, 2008
US defence company Lockheed Martin has assured the Rudd Government the RAAF’s new F-35 Lightning aircraft will begin arriving from 2014 as promised.
The assurance raises fresh questions about whether the RAAF will need the 24 Boeing Super Hornet aircraft ordered by the Howard government to fill an interim role between the retirement of F-111s in 2010 and possible late delivery of the Lightning Joint Strike Fighter.
Lockheed JSF program chief Tom Burbage said he met Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon and discussed the status of the deal, worth up to $16 billion.
The complex JSF has been tipped by analysts as certain to arrive late and cost more than anticipated.
“We believe we can deliver those airplanes,” Mr Burbage said yesterday.
“We don’t see an issue facing us today in our ability to build and deliver the CTOL airplane on whatever schedule Australia decides it wants.”
It would be interesting to know which Block is available in 2014. With all the money spent on HUG [JASSM eventually] & now with CBR being done the requirement to replace the current 71 classic Hornets has been pushed out to around 2018 or more ,or so I beleive. Much of this work was done because it is not beleived that a suitable F35 would not be available in 2014 & it is unlikely that these planes will start to be replaced in 2014 , we need to get our moneys worth out of the upgrades. However how this announcement will effect the SH deal I have no idea,they are replacing the F111, could be expensive getting out of it as Boeing has made announcements that construction has started. I think we will know fairly soon as a decision is fairly quickly needed considering both LM & Boeings announcements.
Tiddles
tiddlesWaiting for Godot …whoops I mean the F35
I would just wait on the F-35’s……………..
Just thinking……….why doesn’t the RAAF pick up a few secondhand GR-1 Tornado’s??? Remember, the whole point of the Super Hornets was to be a stop-gap!
If we had not had to wait for the much delayed F35 for so long there would be no need for an interim fighter,also if we had known of the delays earlier then the partner participation in the JSF project may not have taken place CBR would not have been required & Air 6000 may have proceeded properly. I suspect there will be further delays & the SH purchase will prove to be a big success. As Tasman has pointed out we need to keep all our present squadrons fully functional so that we dont loose any of our operational expertice,this cant be resurected in an airforce the size of ours easily or quickly.
As for Tornados, the cost of training ,spare parts and new maintenance chains etc. etc. makes the idea nonesense it could end up costing more than the SH as the initial cost of these toys is only the tip of the iceberg, the SH is the only answer to this particular situation. I see that there has been some idle suggestions that the USAF may buy some SHs to overcome their problems with the F15 airframes.mmm a stop gap measure.
Tiddles
tiddlesQUOTE: Tasman.– In practice, of course, the RAAF F-111s never flew an operational strike mission. An RF-111C did fly a reconnaissance mission over Tasmania during a dispute between the state and federal governments about a proposed dam construction and some were on standby during the East Timor crisis but that is as close as they got to action. QUOTE:
A bit off topic but I am originally from Tassie & well remember the F111 “Spy Flights” over the Franklin River. It resulted in the then Federal Attorney General being called “Biggles” for the rest of his Parliamentry life. As you would know “Lover Boy” fitted him better.
Cheers from Smithton .Tiddles
tiddlesWell, I guess the RAAF should have never purchased the F-111. As it has always needed fighter escort. Also, the Super Hornets flying characteristics are totally different than the older and smaller Hornet. Sorry, I don’t see either arguement holding much water. As for the F-22 being a stop-gap. My point had more to do with the arrival of the F-35. While the Raptor is no striker in the usual sense. It would still have long range and stealth! Both of which are force multipliers. Regardless, the F-35 would be along shortly to fill the Strike Role. Leaving the Raptor to mainly perform Air Superiority Missions.:diablo:
The F111 was ordered by Australia in October 1963 & JFK made mention of the order in an address at Fort Worth that year, a long, long time ago. Despite early hype & unfulfilled & unrealistic requirement [Strike Fighter, Naval heavy defence fighter] it became a successful long range tactical & strategic bomber exactly what Australia wanted as it was seen as a replacement for the Canberra Bomber & was always seen by Australia as a bomber although initially it was thought that its fast exit speeds would allow it to escape from trouble avoiding the need for escorts ,how many times has this cropped in history with bad results.The F111 has had its day and very few of the airframes are suitable for service at any one time ,usually less than 12 & this not going to improve, good riddance to it, it will be useless to us considering the time out taken by the FA18s while CBR is taking place & the amount work the F111s require to keep a small number airbourne. The SH does has quite a lot in common with its predecessor, maybe not the same bolts & panel sizes ,but similar ergonomics in the cocpit, similar systems & same weapons even the AESA is a derivitive of the APG 73 & the F414 donk is a derivitive of the F404. Spare parts and maintenance contracts are with the same companies etc. etc. etc.As Tasman said transition can take place in about 5 trips no need for separate groups of pilots & as has been said it is the only sensible solution.
The F22 is being talked up in some quarters but will never be purchased as an interim solution, even the airforce does not want it & it is totally useless for our current requirements despite its many charms. The US does not want to export it anyhow, there has been enough whinging out here about the cost of the SH, if the F22 were bought instead of the SH the Government would need to start printing money now, it is just not going to happen.
Tiddles
tiddlesThe order would probably be for 75 firm F-35A with 25 options. In 2014 they decide to either retain the F/A-18F or order the 25 options.
Yet another option would be to return the Super Hornets and only have 80 operational in 3 squadrons (not the preferred option).
The F/A-18F lease makes perfect sense with the early retirement of the F-111 in 2010. BTW the F-111C was due to go 2015-2020. It was always going to be replaced by the last batch of F-35A.
If I remember correctly. The deal with Boeing is outright purchase not a lease of the SH, this does not mean that they cant be disposed of [sold] at some time in the future. I agree with Tasman that current deals will hold up OK & the SH will be in service with the RAAF for many years, it really is the only sensible solution at the present time. There is no doubt that the RAAF would ultimately like to have 100 F35s but it is too far away to see if they will get 100 ,or 75 plus SH or even less, regardless of eventual numbers the decision to purchase the F35 or not has to be made this year & the F35 will be chosen ,any other scenario is just not going to happen.
Tiddles
tiddlesA Pics
Nice pics Arthuro ,I am now using one as background on my computer.
Tiddles
tiddlesNew Netherlands JSS
Dutch Plan for Their Largest Naval Ship Ever
Posted by Joris Janssen Lok at 1/15/2008 6:16 AM
The backbone of a modern, 21st-century navy isn’t its surface combatants or submarines. It is the large amphibious and/or logistic support ships it can deploy to trouble spots around the world, carrying helicopters, hospital facilities, an embarked landing force, supplies, fuel and a suite of C4I facilities. The Netherlands is planning to build its largest ship ever to be able to do just that.
The new ship is designated the Joint Support Ship (JSS) and will have a displacement of 26,000 tons — making it a tight fit to squeeze into Den Helder Naval Base.
Concept design of new Joint Support Ship for the Royal Netherlands Navy — at 26,000 tons the largest naval ship ever built for the RNLN. Image: RNLN
The JSS is to be ready by 2014 and design of the ship (by the Defense Materiel Organization DMO in close conjunction with TNO Defence & Security, Schelde Naval Shipbuilding, Imtech, Thales, and other industry partners) is starting for real now that the program to build four new Patrol Ships has moved into the production phase.
The plan to build a JSS was first published in the 2005 Naval Study. The ship is to replace the fleet replenishment oiler HrMs Zuiderkruis. The JSS will have a large flight deck capable of supporting Boeing CH-47F Chinook helicopters.
It will also be able to replenish other naval ships at sea, provide strategic sealift of strategic military equipment, and act as a seabase during crisis response operations worldwide.
The JSS will join two Landing Platform Dock (LPD)-type ships that entered service with the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN) in 1998 and 2007, respectively (see the Jan/Feb issue of Defense Technology International (DTI) for more detail about these).
Like these LPDs, the JSS will be based on Schelde’s Enforcer family of large support ship designs (this was also used as the design for Britain’s four new Bay-class amphibious support ships).
Although senior sources in the RNLN so far have not been willing to confirm this, a logical step would be to try and get approval for a second JSS to replace the other fleet replenishment oiler in the Dutch fleet, HrMs Amsterdam, toward the end of the coming decade.
After all, one JSS equals no JSS if the ship happens to be in dock for a major refit at the time a sudden crisis erupts.
With a ship like the JSS, the Netherlands will be able to sea-base a significant aviation, logistic, C4I, disaster relief and humanitarian aid capability right offshore a crisis area struck by a natural or man-made disaster, a civil war or other major disruption.
tiddlesPhalanx? Sadral?
[QUOTE=Tasman;1203176]A photo of HMNZS Te Mana that I took in Hobart last year showing the Phalanx in place is attached below.
I have also never seen a CIWS on an RAN Anzac, live or in a photo (and I’ve seen a lot). Whilst the RAN ships were designed with space and weight allowed for a CIWS above the hangar I am not aware of any RAN Anzac having actually been fitted with Phalanx even for trials. I believe that issues with weight margins may be the reason. Compared with the Kiwi ships the RAN vessels have ESSM (extra 24 missiles), Harpoon (2 launchers and up to eight missiles in cannisters), Nulka (4 quad launchers). It may also be that the RAN has confidence that ESSM will provide adequate anti missile protection. Two Phalanx CIWS are being been made available by the decommissioning of Canberra and Adelaide so it will be interesting to see if the opportunity is taken to at least trial these on an FFH.
Hi Tas, I cant find my source but I thought that the Phalanx was not considered by the RAN & that Sadral [Mistral] was the close in option being explored. I f I had to take a guess I imagine neither will be fitted. To fit Phalanx some gear would have to be shifted including the Mini Gun Mounts but this would not be a problem if it was decided to give Phalanx a try.
Tids
tiddlesVSS III
Hi Shiplover – Your drawings are a highlight of this forum which I admire. However in your VSS III concept with Hornets on deck ,the Hornet up forward with drop tank looks as if it is preparing to launch,I thought the ships aerials would be down to horizontal at that point ,but then I am no expert. Also was the deck edge lift your oun idea ,keep up the great work. Ship appears to be about 720 ft.long by about 145ft. at the stern, assuming hornets are to scale.
Regards Tiddles
tiddlesOut of gas
Finally, the A400M is the fastest turbo-prop aircraft currently in production, using 21st century technology. Maybe someone noticed the fuel prices recently. The A400M may be used as technological basis for a future 80-120 people regional airliner.
The following story shows that your opinion may have some merit eventually.
Fuel prices may ground United fleet
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font November 11, 2007
UNITED Airlines may ground up to 100 planes to save money on fuel expenses as other major carriers including American Airlines and Northwest Airlines also consider grounding aircraft.
This comes as two US senators asked aviation officials to look into a report that carriers may have cut back on fuel reserves to reduce expenses, possibly violating safety regulations. Carriers are scrambling to meet demand and maintain their profit momentum after a successful summer travel season amid pressure from high energy prices.
Crude oil was up nearly $US1 ($1.09) on Friday on the New York Mercantile Exchange to $US96.40 a barrel. Every $US1 increase in crude oil prices costs airlines $470 million.
As energy prices have soared, airline stocks have sagged on Wall Street. Industry shares collectively were down again on Friday and were off 11 per cent for the week.
Jake Brace, United’s chief financial officer, told investors this week the company has the option of grounding planes if flying them becomes too costly or if demand wanes.
“We have a lot of flexibility in our fleet in that we have a little over 100 unencumbered aircraft that we could ground, sell, whatever we needed to if the demand environment were such that it didn’t make sense to fly,” Mr Brace said.
An industry insider said other airlines were talking about grounding aircraft if fuel prices continued to rise.
Carriers have raised fares to offset higher costs, but a report last week suggested airlines may have underfuelled planes to reduce weight, making them less expensive to fly.
WABC-TV in New York claimed more planes landed at Newark Airport this year with minimum fuel than two years ago. In some cases, pilots declared fuel emergencies for immediate clearance to land
tiddlesHi Tiddles, I was about to post about the RAN experience when I saw that you had beaten me to it.
Basically the RAN’s reason for knocking it back is that it could not afford the manpower req that a modernised Essex would impose. Even then the RAN’s problem was manpower, not money (the more things change…)
Unicorn
Hi Unicorn, yes as they say nothing much changes, just names place names and dates. However with a full complement of over 3000 the Essex class would have taxed the suitable manpower reserves of plenty of countries. Also I doubt that anyone else but the USN could have afforded the air group. At the time the USS Hancock was paid off it operated 2 squadrons of F-8J Crusaders ,2 squadrons of A4-F & 1 squadron of 4-E Skyhawks.
Back to the original thread question, I suspect that if the Majestic & Collossus Classes had not been available ,many of the smaller navies like the RAN would have never dabbled in fixed wing Naval Aviation.Although there were a few Independances available after 1947,they were not suitable for jet operations or slightly angled decks,as far as I know none ever operated a jet aircraft. I suppose a small Navy could have operated prop driven planes for a while ,however it must be taken into account that the Independances had been hard worked during the Pacific War , most of the British carriers in question were not launched until after the War. Cheers Tiddles
Edit: Just reread this thread & most of this post has already been covered by Obi, I will have to try & concentrate a bit more before posting in future.
tiddlesEssex sale
about the size of the carriers needed for Phantoms, I thought the modified Essexs can operate the Phantoms? I believe they even operated the A-3s. So, the thing is, what happened to all those Essexs in terms of whether anyone else asked for them? There are many of those. Why only British carriers went on “sale”?
Been a while since I posted .
In 1959/60 an Essex Class was offered to Australia. In 1959 the Aust. Govt. announced that Naval Aviation would be abandoned when the present aircraft reached the end of their life in 1963. [Gannets & Sea Venoms], the reasons were lengthy,and not unreasonable at the time, but one of them was that the HMAS Melbourne would be too small to operate the next generation of carrier aircraft. During the year the CNS Vice Admiral Burrell had corresponded with the US CNO Admiral Arleigh Burke [Now there is a familiar name] about problems facing the RAN, Admiral Burke made the offer to replace the CVL with an Essex Class carrier believed to have been the USS Hancock. The offer did not go anywhere and was knocked back by Burrell the reason being that we could not man it. The exact terms of the offer are not known [by me anyhow]
As it turned out the decision to end Naval Aviation was overturned and the HMAS Melbourne continued in one guise or another until 1982 finally being sold for scrap in 1984. The HMAS Sydney was converted to a fast troop carrier specifically to support the Australian Army Vietnam operations and was sold off in 1973.
A similar offer was made to the British,who actually inspected the ships on offer ,one believed to have been the USS Shangri-La but decided that the hull maintenance and equipment needed was not worth the seemingly bargain, its possible that they told Burrell about their reservations.
Cheers Tiddles
Sign In
