Our Navy's New Ship

Whiskers · 19 February 2011

I know the arguement why Australia doesn't have a dedicated aircraft carrier, but since these were designed to carry planes as well as helicopters, I'm curious why our newest ship won't land planes... just helicopters.

Surely, it would be a much more potent ship if it could support planes even as a stop over or emergency landing platform as a tactical or emergency situation may require.

Tysonboss1 · 19 February 2011

Whiskers said:
.

Surely, it would be a much more potent ship if it could support planes even as a stop over or emergency landing platform as a tactical or emergency situation may require.

No, This is a pretty kick ass ship, You have to be realistic. We are far more likly to be carrying out Jobs like we did in east timor and soloman islands than pearl harbour type attacks.

at the moment for they would have to use serval ships to do the job on this one.

Dowdy · 19 February 2011

Tysonboss1 said:
at the moment for they would have to use serval ships to do the job on this one.

And what type of jobs do they do right now???

Stopping boat people is definitely not one of them

DB008 · 19 February 2011

2 of these ships will be replacing the HMAS Kanimbla and HMAS Manoora. Both of which are in a s**t state at the moment. l think that Kanimbla has already been signed off for decommissioning.

Tysonboss1 · 20 February 2011

Dowdy said:
And what type of jobs do they do right now???

Stopping boat people is definitely not one of them

This ship would have been a big help for Timor, solomans, boganville and tsunami relief. Also various counter terrorism roles, we were training for a helicopter based counter terrorism job back in 2005 using kanimbla and it was very time consuming launching birds and there was a max of 4 I think or maybe even 2. This ship is awesome

It could be used for peace keeping roles, border protection, disaster relief, evacuating Australian nationals from hot spots, counter terrorism, conventional warfare, the list does go on

Calliope · 20 February 2011

The navy's biggest problem is that it is seriously undermanned. Recruitment is at a very low ebb. This is not surprising as any male sailor who acts like a sailor will be charged with sexual harassment. Female sailors are encouraged to report all "incidents" whether real or concocted. In the confines of a ship, male sailors are walking a tightrope.

tothemax6 · 20 February 2011

Calliope said:
The navy's biggest problem is that it is seriously undermanned. Recruitment is at a very low ebb. This is not surprising as any male sailor who acts like a sailor will be charged with sexual harassment. Female sailors are encouraged to report all "incidents" whether real or concocted. In the confines of a ship, male sailors are walking a tightrope.

There should be ZERO females in the active military, period.
Any energy invested by anyone in the navy towards anything involving sex, be it thinking about other sailors, or people investigating 'harassment' (which is often 'courtship' in normal-speak) - is energy not invested in practicing for battle.

Although given the percentage of time sailors actually invest in fluff like ironing their clothes and making their beds perfectly, and the time they spend actually practicing how to fight - one would assume that the navys leaders have forgotten what the purpose of a navy is, and that they aren't concern in the slightest as to how well their forces can fair a battle.

Whiskers · 20 February 2011

Tysonboss1 said:
...we were training for a helicopter based counter terrorism job back in 2005 using kanimbla and it was very time consuming launching birds and there was a max of 4 I think or maybe even 2. This ship is awesome

Yeah, I was thinking of a small number of planes, maybe even two would do just to give that bit better range and speed for defence of the vessel and a bit extra air support and protection for landing parties... and in theory it seems like it would be handy as a platform for an air strike force to use as a refueling and rearming base.

So what extra would be needed to launch and land planes? I suppose that big rubber band landing thing is one thing that the helicopters wouldn't use.

Tysonboss1 · 21 February 2011

tothemax6 said:
There should be ZERO females in the active military, period.Any energy invested by anyone in the navy towards anything involving sex, be it thinking about other sailors, or people investigating 'harassment' (which is often 'courtship' in normal-speak) - is energy not invested in practicing for battle.

Although given the percentage of time sailors actually invest in fluff like ironing their clothes and making their beds perfectly, and the time they spend actually practicing how to fight - one would assume that the navys leaders have forgotten what the purpose of a navy is, and that they aren't concern in the slightest as to how well their forces can fair a battle.

Your comments regarding females in the military are uninformed and bordering on idiotic. You are completely wrong. There are many roles inwhich females contribute to greatly to the military, out of the 20 somthing corps in the Army only 4 are restricted from females in some roles.

And in regards to what you call fluff, It is actually called "personal discipline" and "Personal Hygine", and let me tell you both personal discipline and Hygine contribute greatly to a soldiers morale and effectiveness in battle.

When I went through basic training we spent nearly a whole week working on personal discipline, Ironing uniforns, setting out our lockers, making beds, polishing brass, cleaning toilets and showers, parade drill, marching, playing games like "on the ground, on your feet, on the ground, on your feet", before we ever touched a weapon, all in the name of giving us kids enough discipline to follow orders and not get killed or kill our mates".

Tysonboss1 · 21 February 2011

tothemax6 said:
There should be ZERO females in the active military, period.
.

Tysonboss1 · 21 February 2011

Tysonboss1 · 21 February 2011

Whiskers said:
Yeah, I was thinking of a small number of planes, maybe even two would do just to give that bit better range and speed for defence of the vessel and a bit extra air support and protection for landing parties... and in theory it seems like it would be handy as a platform for an air strike force to use as a refueling and rearming base.

So what extra would be needed to launch and land planes? I suppose that big rubber band landing thing is one thing that the helicopters wouldn't use.

We would just be doubling up on a capabilty already supplied by the USA, Our role is to be a little piece of the jigsaw that bolts onto the USA war machine, rather than a duplicate.

If the **** hits the fan hard enough that we need a carrier, the usa will provide it.

pointr · 21 February 2011

Although I served briefly in the RAN ( and was happy to leave ), I'm not a military strategist. On first impressions looking at the news footage re these new ships I thought that big flat high sided hull would be an enemy missile / torpedo dream target. I hope that some of the confidence expressed by previous posts in the USA coming to our aid is well placed if God forbid we should ever be the target of a real all -out conflict. The new ships will undoubtably perform well in one aspect of normal RAN operations , more than enough room for cocktail parties for those connected to the 'upper deck'.

Tysonboss1 · 21 February 2011

pointr said:
. I hope that some of the confidence expressed by previous posts in the USA coming to our aid is well placed if God forbid we should ever be the target of a real all -out conflict.

We shouldn't think that we would ever have a chance of defending Australia alone via a naval battle.

Sean K · 21 February 2011

Tysonboss1 said:
We shouldn't think that we would ever have a chance of defending Australia alone via a naval battle.

Yep, that's why we've invested so much in the US.

These ships could contribute to a US naval force in the SW Pacific, and if we had 10 or so submarines lurking about, we'd be a very good partner for the US or any other government in SE Asia.

There's plans for 3 of these beasts, but due to inevitably cocking up the project we'll settle for 2.

And don't discount these taking FW aircraft later on. The F35 will have a VTOAL version that could easily sit on the deck.

These ships are going to transform our Defence Force really.

Whiskers · 21 February 2011

kennas said:
These ships are going to transform our Defence Force really.

That's what I was hoping...

And don't discount these taking FW aircraft later on. The F35 will have a VTOAL version that could easily sit on the deck.

...and yes that would do it for me... if we get any.

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a family of single-seat, single-engine, fifth generation multirole fighters under development to perform ground attack, reconnaissance, and air defense missions with stealth capability.[7][8] The F-35 has three main models; one is a conventional takeoff and landing variant, the second is a short take off and vertical-landing variant, and the third is a carrier -based variant.

Our Navy's New Ship

Whiskers

It's a small world

Attachments

Tysonboss1

Dowdy

DB008

Tysonboss1

Calliope

tothemax6

Whiskers

It's a small world

Tysonboss1

Tysonboss1

Tysonboss1

Tysonboss1

pointr

Tysonboss1

Sean K

Moderator

Whiskers

It's a small world

Attachments

Similar threads

Our Navy's New Ship

It's a small world

Attachments

It's a small world

Moderator

It's a small world

Attachments

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency