Signup
LoginOz order 2 Mini CV for Super Hornets
62 posts
-
-
below two images ---LHD ordered (mini CV)fr www.navy.gov.au/spc/semaphore/issue14_2007.html#fn
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/jp2048/jp2048ph4A_4B.cfm
below--
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/jp2048/jp2048ph4A_4B.cfm
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/10/australia-signs-amphibious-ship.html
1.Why nobody tell us that Oz already ordered 2 LHD--mini CV?
Forumers here too busy?
2.Why Oz dare not admit that procurement of Super Hornet
is mainly for mini CV?
3.Why Oz ordered so many stuff in 2007,just before the election?
-----2 LHD,''worth about A$3.1 billion (US$2.78 billion) ''
-----2 AWD--Air Warfare Destoryers(est US$6.5 billion) '' $ 11 billion (US$9.3 billion), five ship expansion of the Royal Australian Navy.''
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/06/royal-australian-navy-chooses-f-100-and.html
-----Super Hornets (''expected $A 6 billion or US $4.9 billion'')
-----calling for design of replacements of Collins class sub
The Mini CV---
''The Tenix solution comprises two Navantia designed Helicopter Landing Dock ships with a fully integrated SAAB 9LV 454 Mk3E combat management system and onboard interfaces to external operational and support elements. ''
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/10/australia-signs-amphibious-ship.html
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/semaphore/issue14_2007.html#fn
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/06/royal-australian-navy-chooses-f-100-and.html
of course,Super Hornets will operate fr this mini CV lah.
2.i think Oz will behind the schedule
Contract Signature - September 2007
Preliminary Design Review - September 2008
Detailed Design Review - May 2009
Test Readiness Review - June 2010
LHD #1 Launch - January 2011
LHD #1 Delivery to Australia (Williamstown) - December 2011
LHD #1 Harbour Acceptance Trials - September 2012how can they build in 2 years after detailed review?Remember the hulls have to shipped from Spain!Then rest of jobs are to be completed in Melbourne and Adelside!!
i hope ST Marine will not lose any staff!!
The Tenix Corporation was selected as the preferred tenderer to build the LHDs and, subject to successful contract negotiations, it is expected that the hulls will be constructed in Spain, the equipment fit-out will be completed in Melbourne and the combat system integration will occur in Adelaide.
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/semaphore/issue14_2007.html#fn
Any enough protection
Will oz has enough naval and air platforms to protect
these 2 mini CV,out in sea together or separtely?
Take note current Oz sub fleet can go to sea below 50%
in a year.
There are some problems in frigates etc also.
i have to stop here or else i will be labelled anti --Oz!!
How many surface and submarine platforms required
to protect one mini CV,
with over 1000 personnels on board?
Any naval platform with insufficient protection is
a big floating coffin!just One low technology sub
will finish it.
Edited by lionnoisy 31 Mar `08, 1:26PM
-
-
-
I see lionnoisy is back at it again, after keeping quiet for a while following his staggering defeats.
For one thing, he seems to think that this "mini CV" is going to be used in the same was as a Nimitiz class carrier, but once again had he bothered to do his homework and even read from the article he quoted, he would have realized that is is an entirely different class of ship more like the USMC USS Wasp then a CV.
In fact the term LHD should speak for itself, but he seems to have lost it and suggests that it is for the Superbugs
Wah lionnoisy, I tot you went away to improve yourself but it turns out you aren't churning out any better ideas then your inline skate force.
Edited by SingaporeTyrannosaur 31 Mar `08, 6:35PM
-
-
-
Three dead in Singapore collision
Rescue workers have recovered the body of a third Singaporean naval officer following what has been described as the worst naval incident in modern Singapore's history.A fourth sailor is still missing, after a collision between a patrol boat and a container ship late on Friday.The four, all women, are believed to have been asleep in their quarters at the rear of the navy vessel, which was crushed in the collision with the Dutch-registered freighter in the Singapore Strait.
As investigations continue into the cause of the accident, salvage workers have begun an operation near the site of the incident to recover a large metallic object, believed to be part of the patrol boat's stern that was wrenched off by the impact.
The bodies of 1st Sergeant Seah Ai Leng, 25, Sergeant Heng Sock Ling, 24, and Corporal Goh Hui Leng, 22, were found over the weekend.
Divers found the body of Goh Hui Leng lodged between the bunks on the vessel, and the bodies of the other two women were washed up on the Indonesian resort of Bintan, south-east of Singapore.
Hopes fade
Officials said they held little hope of finding the fourth sailor, 2nd Sergeant Chua Bee Lin, alive.
The women's ship, the RSS Courageous, a 500-ton Singaporean anti-submarine patrol boat, was towed to Singapore's Changi Naval Base on Saturday.
The cargo ship, the ANL Indonesia, which was en route to South Korea, sustained only minor damage and has been anchored in Singapore pending an investigation.
"The collision was the most terrible accident," Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Tony Tan said after inspecting the damaged ship.
"In terms of the possible loss of life, this is the largest loss of life from a single accident that the RSN (Republic of Singapore Navy) has encountered so far," he said.
The accident happened minutes before midnight on Friday, about one nautical mile (1.8 kilometres) north of Pedra Branca, an islet claimed by both Singapore and Malaysia.
Pedra Branca lies off peninsular Malaysia's southern coast, strategically situated at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait.
Eight of the 44 crew on the Courageous were injured. There were no injuries on the ANL Indonesia.
Edited by SingaporeTyrannosaur 31 Mar `08, 6:40PM
-
-
-
Mr noisy lion:
I might have missed it, but where does it say in any of your sources that these CVs are gonna be used for the Super Hornets? For example, that blog article you gave stated:
'Using their integrated helicopters and watercraft, each vessel will be able to land approximately 1,000 personnel, along with their vehicles, the new Abrams tanks, artillery and supplies.'
Uhh.... helicopters, yes, but where does it say anything about airplanes? Or are you gonna say that the Superbugs fall into the category of 'their vehicles' in the above quote?
What are you gonna claim next - that all the crewmen in the ships will be wearing Rollerblades?
Edited by fudgester 31 Mar `08, 6:56PM
-
-
-
I cannot imagine a superhornet ladened with A2G munitions and fuel tanks taking off from that deck. The Yanks had to use catapults to Shoot theirs off the deck. The Ski Jump will only serve to slow the jet down prematurely, resulting in a low and slow jet at extremely low altitudes.
Landing is totally out of the question. Maybe we are looking at JSFs?
Edited by Shotgun 31 Mar `08, 7:32PM
-
-
-
this time i cant really give credit to lionnoisy lar...
doubt that this new vessel has sufficient flightdeck length to support the super bug, probably the F-35 though...
perhaps a better argument would be the use of stripped container ships/oil tankers, with a flight deck plated over for the use of the super bugs...
p.s. how old is lionnoissy>?
-
-
-
oh my God!!
Why no one can see in the first image that there is a ski-jumping board?This is not for R & R for the sailors to
play skate boards lah.
Enlarged for you:
ski--jumping board NOT for the sailors to play lah.
see again:
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/jp2048/jp2048ph4A_4B.cfm
1.I must admit i have not get confirmation that the
ski--jumping board is for Super Hornet only.
But i can sure the board must be for CV aircraft.
Can JSF take off and land in this mini CV??
2.Then,can Super Hornets take off and land in this mini
CV?
-
-
-
Everybody can see the ski ramp on board, but they are smart enough to know it's not for Superbug use.
Man you really are that ignorant are you not?
You enlarge also no use, you simply do not understand how things work at all.
Ski jump or not, there is no way for the Superbug, or most non STOL combat planes for that matter, to reach their takeoff speed in that short a distance on an LHD. The Ski jump is to enable a better AOA when you clear the ship, but it had no effect on your takeoff speed... if you are too slow you'll simply stall the moment you leave the Ski jump and crash into the sea. Unfortunately the LHD (or any ship for that matter) lacks the required length for the Superbug (or any non STOL for that matter) to reach a viable speed to take off, Ski jump or not.
What is required is a catapult, which of course this ship does not have.
And of course landing is another issue without an angled deck, it means that it cannot retrieve aircraft without having to do a full deck turnover because to do an aborted landing would mean having the plane smack straight into whatever's parked in the way on the deck. So much for tactical flexibility.
All this of course, is no surprise because the LHD was NEVER intended to launch non STOL aircraft.
LOL, lionnoisy's notion of launching Superbugs from LHDs is prehaps akin to us launching recon bikes from within our Bionixes... or having Abrams tanks airdropped from C-130s
Fixed wing aircraft that would operate from the LHD would be STOL/VTOL examples such as the Harrier, or the JSF, but NOT the Superbug.
What's next? lionnoisy is going to say the aussies are going to retrofit their superbugs to be VTOL aircraft?
Seriously lionnoisy, if we had people like you giving advice to our military, the SAF is totally doomed.
Edited by SingaporeTyrannosaur 31 Mar `08, 9:50PM
-
-
-
Originally posted by arball:
this time i cant really give credit to lionnoisy lar...
doubt that this new vessel has sufficient flightdeck length to support the super bug, probably the F-35 though...
perhaps a better argument would be the use of stripped container ships/oil tankers, with a flight deck plated over for the use of the super bugs...
p.s. how old is lionnoissy>?
You mean you ever gave any credit to him?Let's see his list of "great" ideas:
1) UAV destruction- Crash 250k SGD Fantail piecemeal into targets like a 3K SGD 7.62mm GPMG.
2) Inline skate force- SAF soldiers wearing rollerblades into urban warfare
3) Run for your life combat position- SAF soldiers must be trained to hold the SAR in one hand by the handle, leaving themselves defenceless and RUN FOR THEIR LIVES!
4) 30 megaton UAF- Alleged Mandai Underground Ammo Facility is equal to Cheyenne Mountain, and that it's 250 ton blast rating matches up to Cheyenne Mountain's 30 MEGATON protected rating.
5) Poor man's CV- Launch and recover non STOL aircraft from small, non catapult capable, LHD instead of using a proper CV.
Seriously, there's one piece of equipment he really should really be at home with and that is the:
ROFLCOPTER!
Edited by SingaporeTyrannosaur 31 Mar `08, 10:04PM
-
-
-
Originally posted by arball:
p.s. how old is lionnoissy>?
Intellectually, about three and a half. In human years, your guess is as good as mine.
The DUH factor here is astounding. Australia's waiting for the JSF, and ski ramps a la HMS Invincible have long been established for STOL aircraft. Noisy Pussy's fucked it up once again - as if that's any surprise.
-
-
-
LOL
I actually laughed out loud when I saw your post Gedanken.
lionnoisy has royally screwed himself up massively this time... and what makes it funnier is that this is his comeback topic after retreating following his astounding defeats in here and he messes it up with his first post.
Edited by SingaporeTyrannosaur 31 Mar `08, 9:56PM
-
-
-
hmm.. ok lar lets try looking at it in a logical manner ,
the LHD mentioned here is ruffly the same length as the illustrious class carriers lar, but not sure with regards to length of flight deck.
illustrious class was fitted with ski jump, for the use of harrier a/c, which have a thrust to weight ratio of 1.1 : 1, (tt means tt thrust > weight) = can fly vertical, [note that 1.1 :1 ratio was for earliest version of harrier]
the LHD is fitted with a ski jump, supposed for the use of F-18, which has a thrust to weight ratio of >0.95, lets assume 1. if im not wrong, super bug also heavier than harrier (by 10,000 lbs)
both have ruffly similar wing loadings, (arnd 93lb liddat)
lets contemplate,
>due to lower thrust to weight ratio, super bug shld have lower acceleration rite?
>lower acceleration =
agh nvm, i cont tml. hav to do hmk alread. lols. somebody finish the eqns for me if convienient.
-
-
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
LOL
I actually laughed out loud when I saw your post Gedanken.
lionnoisy has royally screwed himself up massively this time... and what makes it funnier is that this is his comeback topic after retreating following his astounding defeats in here and he messes it up with his first post.
Look, the guy can't help it - I'm sure lemmings have some inkling, possibly at the last moment, that chucking themselves off that cliff may not be the best of ideas, but they do it anyway.
-
-
-
Originally posted by arball:
hmm.. ok lar lets try looking at it in a logical manner ,
the LHD mentioned here is ruffly the same length as the illustrious class carriers lar, but not sure with regards to length of flight deck.
illustrious class was fitted with ski jump, for the use of harrier a/c, which have a thrust to weight ratio of 1.1 : 1, (tt means tt thrust > weight) = can fly vertical, [note that 1.1 :1 ratio was for earliest version of harrier]
the LHD is fitted with a ski jump, supposed for the use of F-18, which has a thrust to weight ratio of >0.95, lets assume 1. if im not wrong, super bug also heavier than harrier (by 10,000 lbs)
both have ruffly similar wing loadings, (arnd 93lb liddat)
lets contemplate,
>due to lower thrust to weight ratio, super bug shld have lower acceleration rite?
>lower acceleration =
agh nvm, i cont tml. hav to do hmk alread. lols. somebody finish the eqns for me if convienient.
That's way too logical for Noisy Pussy, arball.
-
-
-
Originally posted by tankfanatic:
in theory superbug can launch from that LHD...in theory also it can land on it.... but nobody in their right mind going to do it. Because its simply silly...
And guess who's not in their right mind and simply silly?
In theory that's also good way to make a nice multimillion dollar fireball, but given how lionnoisy loves to crash expensive military equipment or risk soldier's lives by rollerblading in urban ops carrying their SAR-21 by the scope handle... I think it fits his S.O.P pretty well.Edited by SingaporeTyrannosaur 31 Mar `08, 11:31PM
-
-
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
That's way too logical for Noisy Pussy, arball.
Logic is irrelevant to lionnoisy, nor should you really try. Fortunately his counterpart noisylion is always willing to save us the effort of talking to him by engaging him on his level.His posts are mostly trawl-the-net-for-articles-extract-the-bits-i-want-and-copy-and-paste-them-along-with-cute-little-pictures.
Do you think he's going to actually try to argue this thread?
Chances are he will, or he'll just abandon it quietly and start another one elsewhere.
-
-
-
What is the purpose of putting a ski--jumping board ?
The question is for which aircraft,oz or US or SG!?
Super Hornet can be operated from CVN Nimitz of appro 260 m runway.
Oz mini CV of overall length 230 m.
1.Can the ski-jump board help any aircraft take off with this short runway?
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fa18/index.html#TEXT1
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm
2.Oz pilot start train land in US CV.
Will Oz pilots fly oz or US planes?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,22279837-31477,00.html?from=public_rss
<!-- END Story Header Block -->Carrier training for our pilots
<!-- // #section-header-ads --><!-- START Dummy ad code - real code to be inserted instead. --><!-- // .ad --><!-- AdSpace --> <!-- /AdSpace --><!-- END Dummy ad code - real code to be inserted instead. --><!-- START primary content/left column --><!-- Story Toolbar--><!-- // .article-tools --><!-- End Story Toolbar--><!-- // .module-subheader -->Mark Dodd | August 21, 2007
AUSTRALIAN fighter pilots will be taught to land on aircraft carriers for the first time in 25 years.
A select handful of Royal Australian Air Force instructors will be chosen for lessons on how to land on US aircraft carriers flying the new F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter.
The plan, which could eventually lead to participation in US carrier-based operations, marks the first time Australian pilots have flown off aircraft carriers since the retirement of the navy's flagship carrier HMAS Melbourne in 1982.
The carrier training underscores the rapidly evolving military partnership between the US and Australian military. .....
3. http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23426783-5006301,00.html?from=public_rss
$5bn navy wish list
<!-- Article body -->IAN McPHEDRAN
March 24, 2008 09:50pm
THE navy has produced a secret $5 billion "wish list" that includes an aircraft carrier and Tomahawk cruise missiles for its submarine fleet.
It wants a third 26,000 tonne amphibious ship equipped with vertical take-off jet fighters, a fourth $2billion air warfare destroyer and submarine-launched cruise missiles that are able striketargets thousands of kilometres away.
The list comes at a time when the Royal Australian Navy can barely find enough technically qualified sailors to crew its existing fleet.
It also coincides with a push by the Rudd Government to save $1billion a year in defence costs as it ordered a new White Paper to set spending priorities for the next 20 years.
The Spanish made landing helicopter dock.
Edited by lionnoisy 01 Apr `08, 9:28AM
-
-
-
Lion noisy, u just screwed yourself there.
The RAN wants a 26,000 tonne amphibious ship to equip with V/STOL jets. Not Superbugs.
No superbug has landed or taken off from an LHD of this class, and its likely that they will ever.
Su-27/33s operate off the Admiral Kutsenov's ski-jump based on 2 qualities. It has a longer ski-jump to allow the Sukhois to pick up more airspeed, and the Sukhoi itself has a huge thrust to weight ratio (Russian Brute force engines) to do so.
The Superbug is no flanker in terms of that kinda performance. But I'd like front row seats if a Superbug does try to do a ski-jump take off. Failure or not, its gonna be a hell of a show.
-
