More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2020, 03:45
by Corsair1963
A number of Defense Analyst believe the projected number of 75 - 100 F-35's is totally inadequate to defend the Australian Mainland against a serious Chinese Threat! So, how many should they have in the opinion of the members of the forum???

Re: More F-35's for RAAF???

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2020, 04:59
by spazsinbad
Care to cite these anal istas PLEASE. There is a long thread about Oz F-35s with recent postings about the future - there is no mention there from ADF officials about 'extra' F-35s on top of the 100 maximum cited for many a year with only less?

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=441672&hilit=list#p441672 SCROLL DOWN from this item....

How many should Oz have? As many as required and which can be paid for. Already ADF thinks ahead for a replacement.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF???

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2020, 05:38
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:Care to cite these anal istas PLEASE. There is a long thread about Oz F-35s with recent postings about the future - there is no mention there from ADF officials about 'extra' F-35s on top of the 100 maximum cited for many a year with only less?

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=441672&hilit=list#p441672 SCROLL DOWN from this item....

How many should Oz have? As many as required and which can be paid for. Already ADF thinks ahead for a replacement.



First, you see no need for more than 75-100 F-35's. Second, who said anything about Australian Government Officials???

Re: More F-35's for RAAF???

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2020, 05:56
by Corsair1963
Australia can only deploy two fighters in a contested environment?

Quotes:

The impact of the 'tyranny of distance' has recently gained renewed traction following an analysis in Forbes, drawing on detailed analysis by Marcus Hellyer from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in the aftermath of the Prime Minister's $270 billion announcement.

While the Air Force has been the high profile recipient of many major capability developments in recent years, with the acquisition of the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, Super Hornets, Growler electronic attack aircraft and a range of support capabilities, government at least in some small part seems committed to extending Australia's capability in the Indo-Pacific.

This includes the proposed acquisition of two additional KC-30A tankers to better support the tactical and strategic mobility of the Air Force and its air combat forces, however, as Hellyer explains, this may not be enough.

"If a commander wanted to keep F-35As on station around 1,500 kilometres out from mainland airbases (potentially protecting an amphibious task force, a lodged land force, or a naval task force patrolling choke points), planners would likely need to set up two refuelling circuits - one to enable the fighters to reach their station, and then one a few hundred kilometres behind the fighters’ station so they can pull back, refuel and return to station with fuel to fight," Hellyer said.

This limitation is further explained by David Axe writing for Forbes, who explains, "For all the billions of dollars that Canberra plans to spend on its air force in coming years, it still could struggle to significantly expand its capacity for long-range, high-intensity aerial combat.

"With its planned fleet of 72 F-35A and 24 F/A-18F fighters, the RAAF could keep just two jets on station with Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-Off Missiles or Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles, which can range as far as 300 miles and 230 miles, respectively.

"The reason for this hard limit on combat capacity is not that the air force lacks fighters. Even taking into account training and maintenance demands, the RAAF in theory could deploy dozens of F-35s and F/A-18s. But both types can fly just 300 miles or so with weapons and internal fuel."

Further compounding the air combat limitations is the additional material costs associated with supporting the necessary E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning, command and control platforms, which will also require their own dedicated tanker support.

Hellyer builds on Axe's thesis, explaining, "In that scenario, keeping just two F-35As on station would take at least eight F-35As in the air at one time around the clock (two heading out, four cycling between their station and the refueller, and two heading home).

"Each of them would need to fly an eight-hour mission, potentially tanking four or five times. Taking aircraft maintenance and unserviceability into account (which will increase as the operation continues), that would potentially require at least 12 to 16 aircraft to sustain.

"But since pilots can fly that mission only once per day, the cycle needs a minimum of 24 pilots (and more to account for ‘unserviceability’ of pilots as the operation grinds into the future).

"But more is needed. The whole concept of a fifth-generation air force relies on superior situational awareness, so to fully exploit the F-35A’s capabilities the package would need to include an E-7A Wedgetail early warning and control aircraft flying a circuit a hundred kilometres or so behind the fighters to detect enemy aircraft.
"The RAAF has six, and fewer than that will be available for operations, and fewer again serviceable for missions. Therefore, sustaining that one combat air patrol will likely require all the Wedgetails. Keeping them on station will likely draw on some of the tankers’ fuel.

"But the biggest stressor on the viability of the mission is tanker capacity. The air force now has seven KC-30A air-to-air refuellers after recently acquiring an additional two. It’s hard to see more than five being available, and fewer will be serviceable on any given day.

"One tanker, engaged in continuously refuelling fighters on the combat air patrol, can’t stay on station for more than four to six hours before needing to refuel."

Long range munitions can't make up the difference

It is apparent that despite the government's commitment to acquiring additional long-range, precision strike munitions, they simply won't be enough to bridge the glaring capability gap that effectively limits Australia's application of credible air combat power in defence of the long vaunted 'sea-air gap', which continues to serve as the foundation for Australia's defence doctrine.

Recognizing these factors, combined with the ever-shrinking reality of Australia's long vaunted strategic moat in the 'sea-air gap', renowned Australian strategic policy thinker Hugh White presented an idea for a significantly enhanced Royal Australian Air Force to meet these challenges.

White's premise, along with the potential for a doubling of the nation's defence budget, is for the acquisition of some 200 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters armed with the latest in long-range stand-off weapons systems to dictate and dominate the terms of engagement throughout Australia's northern approaches.

Combining the fifth-generation capabilities of the F-35 with other key platforms like the E-7A Wedgetail, KC-30A Tankers and future submarines to severely blunt a potential adversary's hostile intent towards the Australian mainland.

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strik ... kMtXjxt-yE

Re: More F-35's for RAAF???

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2020, 06:24
by beepa
Wouldn't surprise if there were more calls for an expression of interest in the B21. If the US allow export sales and the price is not too exorbitant, it may be a good fit for long range ship sinking.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF???

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2020, 06:30
by Corsair1963
beepa wrote:Wouldn't surprise if there were more calls for an expression of interest in the B21. If the US allow export sales and the price is not too exorbitant, it may be a good fit for long range ship sinking.




Honestly, I would like to see a Tanker Version of the B-21 Stealth Bomber. This would push numbers up and drive prices down. Maybe to a point the USAF could buy more and possibly export the type.


That would clearly be in the interest of the US and her Allies....

Re: More F-35's for RAAF???

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2020, 06:58
by spazsinbad
AXE explaining now? Cool Cool Cool - that really adds to the credibility of the whole scenario - manufactured for effect.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF???

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2020, 09:10
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:AXE explaining now? Cool Cool Cool - that really adds to the credibility of the whole scenario - manufactured for effect.



David Axe is just quoting other sources. Yet, the math is easily supportable....8 F-35's just to maintain 2 F-35's on station.


Then consider the vast territory of Australia and the surrounding region....

Re: More F-35's for RAAF???

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2020, 09:27
by spazsinbad
As others interested have pointed out in the other long running Oz thread: our ADF will have allied F-35s and tankers in the mix likely NOT flying from Australia but their territories to our north. SLDinfo has been banging on about this for AGES.

Australia is part of a coalition with F-35s that are easily interoperable along with other allied assets. IS THAT ENOUGH?

Re: More F-35's for RAAF???

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2020, 11:58
by steve2267
Corsair1963 wrote:Quotes:
... following an analysis in Forbes...
...drawing on detailed analysis by Marcus Hellyer...

... as Hellyer explains...

...further explained by David Axe :bang: :bang: writing for Forbes, who explains... [ Axe has to explain his explanation? ]

"The reason for this hard limit on combat capacity is not that the air force lacks fighters. Even taking into account training and maintenance demands, the RAAF in theory could deploy dozens of F-35s and F/A-18s. But both types can fly just 300 miles or so with weapons and internal fuel." [ so explaineth the Axed ]

Hellyer builds on Axe's thesis, explaining... [ so Axe has a thesis now? ]

...renowned Australian strategic policy thinker Hugh White presented an idea ...

White's premise...

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strik ... nvironment


So Axe is writing for Forbes now? He must feel so relieved he can write serious journalistic pieces, studies, theses and whatnot... and yet cannot get the combat range of the F-35 correct? What's lopping off over 50% of the range anyhow? Who's going to know? A Forbes reader? :doh: Super Hornet's flying 300 mile combat missions on internal fuel alone?

You just know this article HAS TO BE correct, and authoritative, because it uses words like stressor, the authors are renowned and have premises and theses.

Criminy.... YABDT?

Re: More F-35's for RAAF???

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2020, 07:34
by krieger22
steve2267 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Quotes:
... following an analysis in Forbes...
...drawing on detailed analysis by Marcus Hellyer...

... as Hellyer explains...

...further explained by David Axe :bang: :bang: writing for Forbes, who explains... [ Axe has to explain his explanation? ]

"The reason for this hard limit on combat capacity is not that the air force lacks fighters. Even taking into account training and maintenance demands, the RAAF in theory could deploy dozens of F-35s and F/A-18s. But both types can fly just 300 miles or so with weapons and internal fuel." [ so explaineth the Axed ]

Hellyer builds on Axe's thesis, explaining... [ so Axe has a thesis now? ]

...renowned Australian strategic policy thinker Hugh White presented an idea ...

White's premise...

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strik ... nvironment


So Axe is writing for Forbes now? He must feel so relieved he can write serious journalistic pieces, studies, theses and whatnot... and yet cannot get the combat range of the F-35 correct? What's lopping off over 50% of the range anyhow? Who's going to know? A Forbes reader? :doh: Super Hornet's flying 300 mile combat missions on internal fuel alone?

You just know this article HAS TO BE correct, and authoritative, because it uses words like stressor, the authors are renowned and have premises and theses.

Criminy.... YABDT?


One of my "favorite" things about Axe's bridge burning with The National Interest is that despite his claims about how Big Bad Corporate beat all his headlines into clickbait monstrosities with a dash of stolen photography on top, all of Forbes' defense coverage after he jumped there has completely identical headlines to what they would have were they to go up on TNI.

The article in the opening post is exactly what people mean by "garbage in, garbage out". RAAF F-35 fleet size is not the bottleneck for RAAF force projection into the South China Sea, it's the support assets like tankers and AEW&C and forward basing to reduce transit times or strain on support assets. This is exactly what the original ASPI article noted, Axe just spun it to hell and back. And people who aren't familiar with the article he mangled lap it up.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF???

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2020, 10:17
by jessmo112
spazsinbad wrote:AXE explaining now? Cool Cool Cool - that really adds to the credibility of the whole scenario - manufactured for effect.



Spaz it looks like you may see a dedicated Carrier foying Australian colors again in your life time.
China has really done alot to help the Australian and American military industrial complex.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF???

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2020, 21:56
by squirrelshoes
beepa wrote:If the US allow export sales and the price is not too exorbitant, it may be a good fit for long range ship sinking.

I could see that. A couple of B-21s slinging 32 LRASMs might significantly reduce the size of a naval task force in just one sortie.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF???

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2020, 04:01
by Corsair1963
steve2267 wrote:
So Axe is writing for Forbes now? He must feel so relieved he can write serious journalistic pieces, studies, theses and whatnot... and yet cannot get the combat range of the F-35 correct? What's lopping off over 50% of the range anyhow? Who's going to know? A Forbes reader? :doh: Super Hornet's flying 300 mile combat missions on internal fuel alone?

You just know this article HAS TO BE correct, and authoritative, because it uses words like stressor, the authors are renowned and have premises and theses.

Criminy.... YABDT?


Yeah, he doesn't have a stellar reputation.


My mistake I should have posted another source... :?

Re: More F-35's for RAAF???

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2020, 04:03
by Corsair1963
jessmo112 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:AXE explaining now? Cool Cool Cool - that really adds to the credibility of the whole scenario - manufactured for effect.



Spaz it looks like you may see a dedicated Carrier foying Australian colors again in your life time.
China has really done alot to help the Australian and American military industrial complex.


Yes, China can never win an Arms Race with the US and her Allies. All they end up doing is making them richer... :D

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2020, 06:58
by optimist
If you take every half-witted think tank as gospel, you're going to have a busy life.
White papers and defence ministers are the only thing to listen to

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2020, 20:51
by XanderCrews
The F-35 is terrible and Australia should definitely buy 200 of them to make up for whatever shortcomings they're complaining about :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2020, 01:41
by weasel1962
The QE beehives have some space for Aussie bees. Cat's pajamas (Bees knees!).

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2020, 18:21
by geforcerfx
weasel1962 wrote:The QE beehives have some space for Aussie bees. Cat's pajamas (Bees knees!).

Why would the aussies buy B's just to operate them on carriers that are typically based on the other side of the world from them when they own two ships that could be slightly modified to carry and operate F-35Bs on there own? The more the support gap is studied by them the more I see them trending towards maybe getting 20-30 F-35Bs for the Amphibs (maybe some V-22s for support and tanking).

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2020, 19:11
by weasel1962
geforcerfx wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:The QE beehives have some space for Aussie bees. Cat's pajamas (Bees knees!).

Why would the aussies buy B's just to operate them on carriers that are typically based on the other side of the world from them when they own two ships that could be slightly modified to carry and operate F-35Bs on there own? The more the support gap is studied by them the more I see them trending towards maybe getting 20-30 F-35Bs for the Amphibs (maybe some V-22s for support and tanking).


You're reading way too much into the post. USMC F-35Bs aren't bought to operate on the QEs yet there they are...

RAAF F-18 pilots are carrier qualified yet no one is arguing they were bought for operations onboard other carriers. Chill...

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2020, 21:01
by usafr
UK plans to operate at least one of its new carriers mostly in "Indo/Pacific" area with allied support ships and allied aircraft (USMC, Aussie?) F-35B's sharing deck space.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2020, 22:12
by spazsinbad
'weasel1962' said: "...RAAF F-18 pilots are carrier qualified yet no one is arguing they were bought for operations onboard other carriers...." Please tell us more. Please provide a reference or two for this astonishing piece of information. Thanks.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2020, 02:00
by weasel1962
I like these posers. Australian harrier pilot serving on an British carrier...

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2020, 02:06
by spazsinbad
weasel1962 wrote:I like these posers. Australian harrier pilot serving on an British carrier...

What are you referring to here? Where is the reference to this statement which needs context. Are you indicating the past or present. Without any other information or URL your statements are just silly. So how about some more details. Thanks.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2020, 05:26
by element1loop
beepa wrote:Wouldn't surprise if there were more calls for an expression of interest in the B21. If the US allow export sales and the price is not too exorbitant, it may be a good fit for long range ship sinking.


Very much agree, given the recently expressed intent of long-range strike capability that can change a potential enemy's calculus, would be indisputably provided by B-21 and complementary systems of systems, plus weapons, much of which already exists.

But this looks like more F-35, possibly with loyal-wingman, and potential to acquire whatever USN replaces SH BlockIII with (extending NGJ) down the road. More OTHR early warning energy plus more AWACS and a comparatively huge boost in missile defense and related systems.

IMO the continental air and missile defense should include 4 sqns x 12 F-35A each, with the 4 new smaller sqns dedicated to continental air defense, using long-range sensors against bombers and tactical strikers including anti-cruise missile early warning to provide target-quality data feed to short-range high performance SAM defenses around main operating bases and naval ports (think NASAM and CAMM).

But use the original 4 x 24 F-35A (proposed) as an offensive force along with F/A-18F/G force for attack and EA support.

MQ-4 for ISR, SkyGuardian uses JSM for anti-ship strike, P-8A + LRASM to crack bigger units plus anti-sub, then Romeos on DDG and frigate, all supported by both the defensive and offensive F-35 sqns.

So ...

(4 x 24) = 96 Offensive
(4 x 12) = 48 Defensive
12 for development, testing and attrition replacements
TOTAL = 156 x F-35

Add 12 x B-21 for credible long-range strike.

I don't see unfriendly powers being too keen to tangle with that, especially in Alliance context.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2020, 05:44
by marauder2048
element1loop wrote:
beepa wrote:Wouldn't surprise if there were more calls for an expression of interest in the B21. If the US allow export sales and the price is not too exorbitant, it may be a good fit for long range ship sinking.


Very much agree, given the recently expressed intent of long-range strike capability that can change a potential enemy's calculus, would be indisputably provided by B-21 and complementary systems of systems, plus weapons, much of which already exists.


Never say never but this will never happen. The last thing the US wants is another ally complicating
strategic arms treaties; the SLBM sharing agreement with the UK is bad enough.

The last strategic bomber the US "exported" was the B-29 to serve as a Tu-4 surrogate for the RAF.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2020, 05:49
by element1loop
marauder2048 wrote:Never say never but ... complicating strategic arms treaties


Rare as hen's teeth.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2020, 06:10
by marauder2048
element1loop wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Never say never but ... complicating strategic arms treaties


Rare as hen's teeth.


And there's the more practical matter of NG's production rate which will probably barely hit double figures annually.

Maybe way down the line a conventional-only variant (a la B-2C) could be realized that
would be sort of like the SSBN -> SSGN conversions under the treaties.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF???

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2020, 06:15
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote: Yet, the math is easily supportable....8 F-35's just to maintain 2 F-35's on station. Then consider the vast territory of Australia and the surrounding region....


Why would we be maintaining F-35s "on station"? AWACS will be tactical, not 24/7, so no escorts up.

We have long-range sensor early warning and tanker support to head off bombers, maritime patrol, drone and strikefighter as required, so don't have to use 8 to maintain 2. There are 1,000s of km of intervening early warning in most cases. It would be 2 sitting at the end of a strip with 2 backing-up, 1 or 2 tankers to service.

In the case of using F-35 sensors for EW and target tracking for missile defense, 4 squadrons of 12 F-35A would suffice to maintain 1 or 2 F-35A in orbit near defended locations.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2020, 07:38
by weasel1962
There's only Indonesia who can reach Australia & the 2 (and maybe 3) PLA CVBGs.

100 RAAF F-35s (with $billion worth of SDBs and LRASMs) are more than enough to handle those without anybody's help.

Can't see the business case for RAAF B-21s. They don't need it for Indonesia, not when Jakarta is within rocket range from christmas island. Who else do they need that for? China? Far cheaper to just put Bees on the Canberras.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2020, 08:40
by spazsinbad
spazsinbad wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:I like these posers. Australian harrier pilot serving on an British carrier...
&
"...RAAF F-18 pilots are carrier qualified yet no one is arguing they were bought for operations onboard other carriers...."

What are you referring to here? Where is the reference to this statement which needs context. Are you indicating the past or present. Without any other information or URL your statements are just silly. So how about some more details. Thanks.

No answer to my questions above. What is this above statement by 'weasel1962' about? Buehler? Anyone? I'll state plainly:
RAAF F-18 pilots are NOT carrier qualified (that would be one reason why the USN/France does not want them onboard).

RAAF Legacy Hornets were made carrier inoperable from the getgo - mentioned a few times on this forum IIRC.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2020, 09:21
by weasel1962
Even Swiss and Finnish hornet pilots have landed hornets on CVNs. Now how did that happen. More posers....

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2020, 09:25
by spazsinbad
I'm not interested in what other than RAAF Legacy Hornet Pilots are capable. Perhaps in the distant past an exchange RAAF pilot or two did carrier qualify in their initial USN training (I think BINSKIN [A4G qualled] was one such) but there after when usual RAAF Legacy Hornet training in Australia there was no such carqual. So one or two RAAF pilots carqualled does NOT make the RAAF Legacy Hornet pilots carrier qualified. CAPICE? What is your deal with 'posers'. Jealous much?

Now what is the deal about 'Australian Harrier Pilots'. I can tell you lots but I want to hear what you are talking about 1st.

Good change of topic with the Finny & Swissy PIlot - not related to the 'RAAF Carrier Qualified' though. HUH? FLY NAVY .

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2020, 20:11
by eagle3000
weasel1962 wrote:Even Swiss and Finnish hornet pilots have landed hornets on CVNs. Now how did that happen. More posers....


One exchange pilot does not make pilots (plural!) carrier qualified in general.

Australian, Swiss or Finnish Hornet pilots are not carried qualified. Except the odd exchange pilot that has been qualified at some point.
Or can you provide a source that explains the training programs of those countries? Because they would have to send all the pilots to the US.
Swiss pilots certainly, and for the others I'm fairly certain as well, do all their training at home.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2020, 00:57
by weasel1962
Thank you for making my point. I said to the QEs have space for Aussie Bs. Somebody reads it to mean Australia has to buy Bees for the Brits. I state Aussie pilots are carrier qualified, someone adds the word "All" to pilots being carrier qualified, even though I never said it.

Wouldn't it be strange that ALL pilots are carrier qualified when the country doesn't have a carrier? and yes, there is more than one Aussie pilot that's carrier qualified so grammatically, I need to say "pilot" and not "pilots"? That's beyond an*l. Chill.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2020, 01:27
by spazsinbad
weasel1962 wrote:Thank you for making my point. I said to the QEs have space for Aussie Bs. Somebody reads it to mean Australia has to buy Bees for the Brits. I state Aussie pilots are carrier qualified, someone adds the word "All" to pilots being carrier qualified, even though I never said it.

Wouldn't it be strange that ALL pilots are carrier qualified when the country doesn't have a carrier? and yes, there is more than one Aussie pilot that's carrier qualified so grammatically, I need to say "pilot" and not "pilots"? That's beyond an*l. Chill.

I had a look & nobody said "ALL blah blah blah". Yes you need to explain the Aussie Harrier Poser Pilot comment. Thanks.
weasel1962 wrote: I like these posers. Australian harrier pilot serving on an British carrier...

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2020, 01:42
by spazsinbad
spazsinbad wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:I like these posers. Australian harrier pilot serving on an British carrier...

What are you referring to here? Where is the reference to this statement which needs context. Are you indicating the past or present. Without any other information or URL your statements are just silly. So how about some more details. Thanks.

No reply or more info 'weasel1962' about what 'posers' from Oz are serving on British Carriers? Perhaps this will fill you in?
Where Are They Now – Andrew Davis
Sep 2020 A. Davis via FAAAA webmaster

[FAAAA webmaster] "Andrew “Mum” Davis tells us [dear readers] the following:
“As background, I was ex-Tracker and exchanged to RN in 1984 with the demise of fixed wing in Australia. I’m most proud of being the second last guy to trap on Melbourne in ‘82. Snapper McKean landed on 20 seconds after me - and while I’ve never forgiven him for that I did get his hook point on a plinth as a presentation.

The idea of the exchange was four of us pilots and four observers would do a helicopter conversion and then a front line tour. I did Sea Kings and went front-line on 820 NAS. With no useful job back in the RAN I later transferred to the RN on a permanent basis and went through the Sea Harrier (SHAR) pipeline. Nine other [ex-RANFAA] fixed-wing pilots had already gone down that path. At one stage ex-RAN made up a third of the RN SHAR force. I served in all SHAR squadrons 800/801/899 (except 809 of course)* and ended up driving Naval Flying Standards [FW].

I was the longest stayer, only leaving the regulars in 2004. Since then I have been RN Reserve and happily jetted about in Hawks in the Maritime Strike Training role part-time until five years ago. Since then I’ve done RNR headquarters, flying supervisory and Ops jobs while playing at being an airline pilot with Virgin Atlantic. I have lived near Yeovilton for pushing on 33 years now. Now left Virgin Atlantic due to COVID, and looking for new work!

That’s me in a nutshell. Loving life in UK generally. Regards, AD.”

[FAAAA webmaster] Our readers love to hear what happened to their mates, particularly if they ‘dropped off the plot’ (to overseas or to some exotic flying / maintenance / druglord job somewhere) - so don’t be shy. Drop the webmaster a quick email here and tell us your story in a few paragraphs.

* By Ed. For those that don’t know, 809 Squadron was equipped with Sea Harriers and primarily did duties in the South Atlantic immediately after the Falklands War. The Squadron was disbanded in 1982, some time before Andrew arrived in the UK. It has recently recommissioned to be equipped with the F-35B Lightning II.

Source: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/wp-content/upl ... -Final.pdf (2.2Mb)

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2020, 03:10
by XanderCrews
weasel1962 wrote:. I state Aussie pilots are carrier qualified, someone adds the word "All" to pilots being carrier qualified, even though I never said it.



might be a lost in translation issue here, but bascially when you "X does Y" it sounds like its an automatically built in function.

"Marines are rifle qualified." makes it sound as if so long as someone is a Marine, they are indeed rifle qualified.

By saying "Aussie pilots are carrier qualified" it makes it sound as though they are qualified by the nature of being an Australian pilot. as opposed to SOME are carrier qualified. or have been in the past.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2020, 03:30
by spazsinbad
Back in the dreamtime the RAN had a Fixed Wing/Helo Fleet Air Arm; by the early 1980s gradually the Fixed Wing Assets were disbanded / given to the RAAF or sold to Kiwis, whilst the only aircraft carrier was sold to China as scrap. Fixed wing aircrews went hither and thither. Some went to the RAAF whilst one went on to be CDF Chief of Defence Force. Some went to SHARS as noted. Some had been on exchange Harrier postings with the RN FAA/USMC so they had experience.

Still waiting for the 'poser' info.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2020, 09:46
by aussiebloke
spazsinbad wrote:Still waiting for the 'poser' info.


From the context I strongly suspect Definition 1 not Definition 2.

poser noun (1)
Definition of poser (Entry 1 of 2)
: a puzzling or baffling question

poser noun (2)
Definition of poser (Entry 2 of 2)
: a person who poses

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2020, 10:02
by spazsinbad

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2020, 10:37
by weasel1962
The shadow thinks some RAAF blokes are gonna fly reapers next.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2020, 12:20
by madrat
spazsinbad wrote:ONLY THE SHADOW KNOWS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shadow or MAYBE CHICKENMAN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenman_(radio_series)


Dick Ortin RIP. That really sparked memories of how everyone on our school bus got silent to hear each episode of Chickenman. The last great thing to come from Chicago.

Re: More F-35's for RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2020, 13:19
by spazsinbad
He's everywhere - He's everywhere - bakbakbakbaa..... CHICKENMAN!