Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

[spazsinbad]

I guess billybobBoyo BS missed this 'proof of concept' - damn those sneaky gyrenes eh.
Earlier Video / Story about above/on previous page below: A VERY LONG STORY ABOUT GCE INDEED BEST GO TO URL

USMC Long Range Raid
02 Jan 2014

"PALMFEX 1-14 is the culminating exercise for Infantry Officer Course 1-14. In addition to the normal training evolution, this will also provide a “Proof-of-Concept” long-range operation from 29 Palms California to Fort Hood Texas. This is a total distance of approximately 1,100 miles and will solidify the Marine Corps as the only DOD asset to have validated the ability to provide this capability.

From 27 November 2013 to 19 December 2013, IOC (-)(+) deploys to the MCAGCC in 29 Palms, CA to conduct mechanized and dismounted, combined arms, live-fire training, full-spectrum, blank and live-fire urban training, and a “proof-of-concept” long-range operation IOT prepare infantry and ground intelligence officers for duty in the Operating Forces.

PALMFEX is a newly validated capability as it applies to Crisis Response, HA/DR, Anti-Piracy missions and other DOD strategic requirements."

VIDEO: https://vimeo.com/83679514

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/the-gce-drives-u ... rspective/

The GCE Drives USMC Aviation Innovation:
Major Cuomo of the Infantry Officer Course Discusses the IOC’s Team Perspective
12 May 2014 Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

"One of the reasons the USMC is in a key position to shape the future of military aviation is simply because of the growing interactivity between ground and air operations. The Rover revolution and the revolution in air precision dropping are but two examples of innovations in the past decade where air and ground operations are operating on a sliding scale of operational dynamics, notably after air dominance has been achieved.

The Marines with the Osprey innovations under their belt and now building out for further possibilities and with the coming of the 21st century “flying combat system,” the F-35, to the MAGTF, are well positioned to continue to contribute key innovations....

...The experiments are continuing and will lead to the deployment of the capability being shaped by these experiments aboard a forthcoming MEU deployment.

And as the MEU draws upon this capability, the experiment will continue, but in real world operations.
Graphic: http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... Slide1.jpg

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/talon-reach-long-range-raids/

[spazsinbad]

From 'flycookie' at 'ADF Serials' this photo shows 'Little F' (LCDR Flying XO to CAG) in FLYCO on HMAS Canberra LHD with an AMAFTU (Aircraft Maintenance & Flying Trials Unit) MRH90 on approach probably off Tasmania for the rough weather innit:

http://www.adf-messageboard.com.au/invboard/ & http://www.adf-messageboard.com.au/invb ... 818229.jpg

[spazsinbad]

PHOTO TOUR OF HMAS Canberra: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... ost7638076

[spazsinbad]

No White Paper 2015 yet but anyway the two LHDs together in Sydney (NuShip Adelaide L01 heading into the dry dock) with HMAS Canberra L02 alongside FBE Fleet Base East (Garden Island) Sydney Harbour.

MORE overhead pics and story here: http://australianaviation.com.au/2015/0 ... ea-trials/

[spazsinbad]

PM's floating fighter jet plan quietly sunk by Defence
07 Jul 2015 John Kerin

"Prime Minister Tony Abbott's proposal to put F-35 fighter jets on the Navy's two 27,000-tonne troop transport assault ships has been quietly dropped ahead of the government's defence white paper after it was found the ships would require extensive reworking and the project was too costly.

Mr Abbott asked defence planners in May last year to examine the possibility of putting up to 12 of the short-take-off and vertical-landing F-35Bs on to the two ships – the largest in the Navy – which carry helicopters and are likely to be primarily used to transport troops and equipment to war or disaster zones....

...Defence sources have told The Australian Financial Review that the proposal was "still in the white paper mix" up until some weeks ago.

But one source close to the white paper was emphatic on Tuesday that "it will now not make the cut".

"There were just too many technical difficulties involved in modifying a ship which takes helicopters to take fighter jets and it is also very expensive," the source said. "You can safely say it has been dropped."

The white paper, which lays down the Abbott government's 20-year vision for defence – including a $275 billion-plus weapons wishlist – is expected to be released next month...."

Source: http://www.afr.com/news/politics/pms-fl ... 707-gi6qxj

[gergf-14]

Spaz, Toenails Abbot is a first class politician, is it not a ploy to see the political will of the Australian Government perhaps.

Those ski ramps look awesome, pity they are just for show..........??

[spazsinbad]

Spaz, Toenails Abbot is a first class politician, is it not a ploy to see the political will of the Australian Government perhaps.

Those ski ramps look awesome, pity they are just for show..........??

I'm not sure what you mean by the last half of your first sentence. Anyway it was always of note to see at the time that the DefMin of that time and the PM express their interest in the idea of Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs. This idea had not been around much for a decade - when it was recommended by a federal parliament bi-partisan working group. All history nowadays - however I will be interested to see the White Paper excuses for NOT having any F-35Bs on our LHDs.

I'm not going to attempt to summarise such a long thread, however... I can see how the idea that Oz F-35Bs should make the Oz LHDs some kind of mini LHA ala USMC was not good. What is good and was done during my time in the RAN with A4Gs in the early years, was to have a small number of fighters on board for FLEET DEFENCE. Look that up in this thread - search on 'Fleet' then search those results on 'Defence' if that is necessary.

The problem with a small number of F-35Bs is that the RAAF would fly them and they would need to be able to justify their use when not on LHDs - which itself may not have been much - only as required and for training purposes. So that is a niche capability but otherwise useful as we know because of the amazing capabilities of the F-35s with networking - which the RAAF have gone berserk over - but I can say that the RAAF do not like blue water ops and their smarmy bullshit is always going to be difficult to overcome.

Who knows the future however. A lot may or may not happen up north and there will the times when all the F-35B operators demonstrate what an asset they are - with or without ski jumps. This thread makes it clear that the ski jump was retained on the Oz LHDs because it is part of the hull and to get rid of it required an extensive expensive re-design. You can see how similar excuses have put the kybosh on F-35Bs on our LHDs - which curiously enough were designed by the Spanish to operate their own (non-existent at the moment) F35Bs. Bullshit always Baffles Brains - especially reporter brains when brainwashed by RAAF/CRAB bullshitting ning-nongs.

It will be interesting to see how 'Fleet Defence' is managed in the ADF. The now defunct AVM Brown hand waved it away as though it is easy. Perhaps it is now that there are SEVEN RAAF KC-30A tankers to become available. In real life I wonder what the ARMY will say about 'FLEET DEFENCE' when they are onboard. They'll get out their BLOWPIPES I guess.

[popcorn]

Like Yanks, the Aussies will rely on AEGIS and specially the new SM-6 to defend the fleet. With Wedgetail eyes to effect OTH missile shots at distance and tankers to keep Wedgetails on station. And, of course, integrating into a USN CBG in any likely expeditionary scenario. Added capabilty will be provided by Neptune and Triton down the road.

[spazsinbad]

Unlike the YANKS Oz has no aircraft carriers - personally I would not rely on our RAAF for anything. However if that is the way the cookie crumbles then so be it. I will still wait for the official 2015 White Paper to see the reasoning. AND... 30 years is a long time so in any more violent future we may see more interest. Meanwhile (whatever is thought at the moment) more is known about what it will take go have a few F-35Bs onboard our LHDs - knowledge is a good thing.

AND... I remember the push to have MELBOURNE the aircraft carrier become ASW Helo ONLY decision early 1960s. Whilst this was being implemented (and fixed wing was winding down at that time) some up north events changed that 'ASW HELO' only decision completely. AND we know what happened next - or some of us know. AND I'll remember that our RAAF has a bad habit of promising the RAN a lot AND not delivering - so bad were they that KIWIs had to help the RAN out. How shameful is that? CRABs have no shame is why.

[popcorn]

Yes, the RAN defensive onion will be minus a ring wihout organic fighters. Looking forward to the WP as well. As an aside, am wondering re any BMD strategy.

[spazsinbad]

'popcorn' you have paper capabilities - however - I reckon the RAAF commitment needs some bolstering (from their past history of bad support for the RAN in general - not just the old fixed wing aviation). Perhaps that RAAF commitment to the RAN (AND NOW THE ARMY WHEN ON LHDs) is there today. We'll see. AEGIS may be my wingman but the RAAF sure ain't.

[weasel1962]

Its a waste imho on the Australian decision but clearly the top brass never had the will to go ahead with the F-35Bs otherwise this would have been implemented since day 1 of the LHD acquisitions. It was a good try by Abbott though to test if this had changed.

It would be interesting if Singapore do go ahead with a F-35B equipped JMMS. One still might see Bs flying constantly in Australia with the USMC & RSAF operating there.

[optimist]

It was just a know-nothing thought bubble from Abbott. The ADF immediately said "Idiot" internally, but had to save his face and go through the motions for a while.
My understanding is that ADF never wanted the F-35b. It doesn't fit the CONOPS of the 2 LHD. They have said if the gov wants a fixed wing carrier, they will need to buy one and other support assets.

[spazsinbad]

'optimist' do you have any proof for your assertions? I'm waiting for the White Paper 2015 - apparently out next month. It was not only the PM but the DefMin of the day who made the request and as I have pointed out relentlessly here such a concept was recommended more than a decade ago by a Bi-Partisan Federal Parliament Committee - but never taken up as we know.

[optimist]

I know you like the idea of f-35b's.

which one are you referring too? Both are bar talk.
abbott having an irrational thought bubble?
or
early 2000's gov was told no f-35b's on 2 x LHD, when it was asked about, because the ramp was kept. and why don't we get some B's then? leaving the ramp on didn't lose a front spot because of fire fighting requirements and it would need redesign to take it off. cheaper to leave on. The only negative I've heard is swirling winds from the ramp.
If we go anywhere dangerous, it will be under a USA coalition umbrella. I was told the same applies to the french flat top and it needs coalition support. So we would need significant assets to go anywhere by ourselves.
ADF told our Gov they need another flat top, support ships and assets for fixed wing (and a lot more money) As you would know from your time in the RAN, It really is a different ball game.