Mate, my eldest granddaughter's husband was an engineering officer in HMAS CANBERRA. He told me that the flight deck isn't strong enough for the weight (and landing force) anything but helicopters. That means that helicopter gunships with their limited linger, range and capability would the only close air support an opposed landing could expect if the ship was operating independently and beyond the range of land based RAAF close air support.
Paul, if that's right, then that is outrageous and and a scandalous waste of Australian taxpayers money.
Canberra and her sister have been built with ski jumps (not bolted to the flight deck, but part of the intrinsic design) to enable them to operate F35B's, the jump serves no other purpose.
Should Australia procure a number of B models, then Canberra and her sister would be very useful and capable light multi roll aircraft carriers.
As Ron quite rightly says, Australia is an Island nation.
Like the UK its entirety dependent on its main line of supply, ie the sea.
After a very long wait, the UK has finally woken up to the need to operate Aircraft Carriers again and is in the process of commissioning two 70,000 ton vessels.
The UK has decimated its conventional defences to fight the War on terror, a grave mistake and one that will one day bite us on the arse.
If I was a US taxpayer, I would be very unhappy at having to guarantee and fund Defence for the entire Western world!
Last edited by mrclark303; 01-13-2018 at 06:29 AM.
"...our new subs are being built off shore..." Better than buying old Brit Upholder class subs in 1998 that were way past being serviceable. Our lot bought several that tried to sink after catching fire, on the trip across the North Atlantic. So don't buy used kit from the RN.
"...we have aircraft that can use one..." CF's F-18's are carrier rated. As are the drivers. And we have no big boat to put 'em on.
Thanks O/T pretty well spot on was the pic of the chaps with the No 4 with the spike attached moving forward I must confess have not seen to many shots of that type plenty with the '07 but not the spike.
Paul, if that's right, then that is outrageous and and a scandalous waste of Australian taxpayers money.
Canberra and her sister have been built with ski jumps (not bolted to the flight deck, but part of the intrinsic design) to enable them to operate F35B's, the jump serves no other purpose.
Should Australia procure a number of B models, then Canberra and her sister would be very useful and capable light multi roll aircraft carriers.
As Ron quite rightly says, Australia is an Island nation.
Like the UK its entirety dependent on its main line of supply, ie the sea.
After a very long wait, the UK has finally woken up to the need to operate Aircraft Carriers again and is in the process of commissioning two 70,000 ton vessels.
The UK has decimated its conventional defences to fight the War on terror, a grave mistake and one that will one day bite us on the arse.
If I was a US taxpayer, I would be very unhappy at having to guarantee and fund Defence for the entire Western world!
I fully agree on all points.
Re: CANBERRA and the F35s - I sent my grandson in law video of the F35 carrier tests when he was first posted aboard CANBERRA knowing that her flight deck had a 'jump jet ramp'. The ship was still going through her post commissioning work-ups and certifications at the time. That was when he told me she wasn't fixed wing (F35, etc.) capable because the deck wasn't strong enough. My immediate thought was, 'Well that's f*cking great isn't it?' Yeah, it's great having a ship that can deliver and amphibious force, but it's a lot better if the ship can defend and support the ashore force. Basically, it rules out anything operating independently of land based or carrier borne aircraft if the operating against a significant opposing force.
But then, I'm not the bloke at the top of the pile in the ACT who makes the decisions and signs the cheques.
Mind you, CANBERRA performed sterling duty when she went up to Fiji after the cyclone went through.
"...our new subs are being built off shore..." Better than buying old Brit Upholder class subs in 1998 that were way past being serviceable. Our lot bought several that tried to sink after catching fire, on the trip across the North Atlantic. So don't buy used kit from the RN.
"...we have aircraft that can use one..." CF's F-18's are carrier rated. As are the drivers. And we have no big boat to put 'em on.
perhaps the Collins class subs have something to do with that decision?
I will agree Merle the "Colins" had their issues but most of which was sorted I think they ended up buying the fire control system from the USA Navy, foggy memory that there was an issue with noise from the prop shafts cannot remember but there was a noise issue.
In the end they ended up a pretty quiet fish which if you can believe what was said about them gave the USN's hunter killer submarines curry apparently in wargames, once a friend I knew was out a fair way fishing when one of these things surfaced fired up the diesels to get under way he thought it was on fire the amount of black smoke that issued from it bit like the Canberra Bombers with their starter cartridges.....
Here's another told to me that when the US carrier is out with its fleet there is more to it under water a story I got from a friend who was at Gage roads W.A's Naval base that when the fleet was in Freo the sub/s attached to them surfaced at night with just the sail visible.
Whether true or not does not worry me as it makes tactical sense to have one or two attached as the best way to kill a sub is with another one.
Originally Posted by Paul S.
taxpayers money.
PM
