Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Australia orders $3.7 Billion in U.S. Military Aid.

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonbeleiver77
 


HMAS Canberra

One of two LHD (Landing Helicopter Dock) the Australian Navy will have in service by 2015.

The ship's roles are to:
•embark, transport and deploy an embarked force (Army in the case of the ADF but could equally be an allied Army or Marines), along with their equipment and aviation units, and
•carry out/support humanitarian missions.

Therefore the requirement is for a multipurpose ship able to operate in both these roles, but not necessarily simultaneously, owing to the differing configuration requirements.

The first LHD, named HMAS Canberra, is due to be commissioned in January 2014 and the second ship, HMAS Adelaide, is planned to commission in June 2015.


There are no plans to place F35s on the LHDs, as the F35s we are receiving are the F35A, not the VSTOL F35B. The idea is to use the NH90, a combined Army/Navy heavy transport helicopter that replaced the Sea King HS1s, and the SH60s and whatever they use to replace them, which I think is the HH60 Romeo (I could be wrong about that one though). I think the idea is more rapid response to the island nations under our protection, such as Fiji and the Solomons, rather than a projected force. A true carrier would do no good for Australia, there's just too much coastline to protect to justify having a fixed-wing naval air wing like the US does. The Australian military's main goal always seem to be peacekeeping and home defense.




posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by 74Templar
reply to post by Anonbeleiver77
 


HMAS Canberra

One of two LHD (Landing Helicopter Dock) the Australian Navy will have in service by 2015.

The ship's roles are to:
•embark, transport and deploy an embarked force (Army in the case of the ADF but could equally be an allied Army or Marines), along with their equipment and aviation units, and
•carry out/support humanitarian missions.

Therefore the requirement is for a multipurpose ship able to operate in both these roles, but not necessarily simultaneously, owing to the differing configuration requirements.

The first LHD, named HMAS Canberra, is due to be commissioned in January 2014 and the second ship, HMAS Adelaide, is planned to commission in June 2015.


There are no plans to place F35s on the LHDs, as the F35s we are receiving are the F35A, not the VSTOL F35B. The idea is to use the NH90, a combined Army/Navy heavy transport helicopter that replaced the Sea King HS1s, and the SH60s and whatever they use to replace them, which I think is the HH60 Romeo (I could be wrong about that one though). I think the idea is more rapid response to the island nations under our protection, such as Fiji and the Solomons, rather than a projected force. A true carrier would do no good for Australia, there's just too much coastline to protect to justify having a fixed-wing naval air wing like the US does. The Australian military's main goal always seem to be peacekeeping and home defense.

Hmmmm...fair enough
thanks for info
I hadn't done any research was just conjecture as I see it everyday from the bridge.
I wonder what the ramps for then?
As I said can't see choppers needing a ramp?



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonbeleiver77
 


It reminded me of the UKs Harrier Carriers thats why I thought ...



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by tadaman




not to mention Australia has been involved in MOST wars if not all that the UK and the US have had. Even Vietnam, Korea, EVERYWHERE.


We are part of the commonwealth. When the U.K declares war, we have an obligation to follow suit. When Britain declared war in WWII, then it became our war as well, since we are part of the British 'empire'.

As for us and the U.S, We were allies in previous wars. It's only logical that we aide each other now as we did in the past.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonbeleiver77
 


Mind you, I'd love to see a pic of it sitting in the Williamstown docks right now.


As far as I know they are based on a Spanish design Juan Carlos I, and the Spanish Navy uses Sea Harriers from their decks, so that would explain the ramp, as its intention is to utilise V/STOL fixed wing aircraft. The F35B would certainly be able to operate from them, but Australia has no plans for anything other than F35As, which are the basic fixed wing version. The F35B has the central fan, allowing it to take off and land vertically, and the F35C is the navalised version the US Navy is looking at. The only other thing I have heard is they plan to use remote drones from the decks also, so the ramp would be useful for them also.

Basically the LHD is meant to be a floating can of whoopass, complete with vehicles, helicopters and troops that can go anywhere quickly and lend additional support to countries that need it. I can't see them trekking off to the Middle East anytime soon.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by 74Templar
reply to post by Anonbeleiver77
 


Mind you, I'd love to see a pic of it sitting in the Williamstown docks right now.


As far as I know they are based on a Spanish design Juan Carlos I, and the Spanish Navy uses Sea Harriers from their decks, so that would explain the ramp, as its intention is to utilise V/STOL fixed wing aircraft. The F35B would certainly be able to operate from them, but Australia has no plans for anything other than F35As, which are the basic fixed wing version. The F35B has the central fan, allowing it to take off and land vertically, and the F35C is the navalised version the US Navy is looking at. The only other thing I have heard is they plan to use remote drones from the decks also, so the ramp would be useful for them also.

Basically the LHD is meant to be a floating can of whoopass, complete with vehicles, helicopters and troops that can go anywhere quickly and lend additional support to countries that need it. I can't see them trekking off to the Middle East anytime soon.

I'll take a pic and post it...
thats not against policy is it?



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by 74Templar
 


Australia has two primary aims in defense.

The first is to stop an invading sea borne force from landing and the second is to destroy any bridgehead if they do manage to land. With the F/A 18 operating out of land bases providing air superiority the new ships could launch helos attacks and land heavy armor to retake the shore line. Subs can keep enemy naval units at bay.

Our defense is the defense of an island. Kill them as they come, kill them as they land and make mince meat of their supply lines. If an enemy can survive that then, well, there is the desert, supply lines over harsh terrain, lack of food and water, heat, floods, snakes and drop bears with the Australian armor ready to unleash a firestorm.

Very few countries can do both the manpower requirements and the force projection. In fact, I can only think of one! That would be the US.

The biggest question is will Indonesia ever try. They might!

P



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Thecakeisalie
 




As for us and the U.S, We were allies in previous wars. It's only logical that we aide each other now as we did in the past.


yeah, I agree.....like if Australia was faced with a defense threat and /or need of resource acquisition, we would help as well.
edit on 8-3-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


I think the day we declare ourselves a Republic, they may consider it, but I don't think the US would be too far away if that ever did happen. Even if it were just arms, I tend to think the US would be one of the first to step in and park a big-ass carrier between us and Indonesia...


You're exactly right of course in our defenses, and we are pretty well set up for the attack and fade style of warfare should anyone land on our shores as an invading force. Even trying a beach head along the southern coastlines you would be playing with fire trying to reach the major centres to take control. I guess Canberra would be a target there, but I couldn't imagine any force crossing the mountains and the snowies to get there. There's just too much thick bush in the way, which would be perfect for our troops as we know these areas well. Other side is just desert for miles and miles, you'd either have to cross the Sandy or come down through inland Queensland and central NSW, something again you'd better be well equipped for if you're ever going to see an east coast city.

There is a reason all of our main bases are located in such places as Townsville, Cairns and Darwin, and our logistical centres and training bases are in the south. Australia is no doubt watching Asia, becasue if there is a likelihood of attack, it will come from there. It would be a nightmare to try to bring troops by sea to the southern coastlines.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonbeleiver77
 


I don't think it would be. If you can see it on your daily commute, I don't think it's a classified image.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by Thecakeisalie
 




As for us and the U.S, We were allies in previous wars. It's only logical that we aide each other now as we did in the past.


yeah, I agree.....like if Australia was faced with a defense threat and /or need of resource acquisition, we would help as well.
edit on 8-3-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)


Yea, ...... maybe. Or would it be in the US National interest to wait a few months until Australia has lost a good % of its tech and then sail to rescue with a trillion dollar bill for services rendered putting Australians in debt for the next few generations ........ Which we pay back by allowing Haliburton to do all the reconstruction work ....

If you were talking of the US of old I would have said hell yes! We are brothers in arms! Now, I am not certain which way the US politicians would jump. The US helped Britain in WW2 and put Britain in one hell of a debt.

I am not sure we can afford US help.

On the other hand China would help for free, more or less, just for the defense partnership it would engender. The world can be a funny place.

P



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


again.

I agree.

But think about it this way....at least they are not in charge of your life, wealth and well being like they are for US citizens.


I wouldnt wish our current leadership on most people.....

EDIT:
I disagree with one thing though.

Dont trust the Chinese, look at how they treat their own people. They also have a racial problem with everyone and everything NOT Chinese. The world is a cash cow to them....I would prefer us on our worst day over a China in charge of "world police"......those would be dark days.....

edit on 8-3-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
".. Yes mate, I'd like to order $3.7 Billion in U.S. Military.. Need 1 nuke"
... NK dingos aggression is prompting this.. maybe they want interceptor missiles? Or a Nuke? (I think Aussies should be allowed to have a defence like that) with NK and the Philippines is having issues..



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by tadaman
 


Yes there is that! I would not want any country to be the world's Police.

That was whet the UN were supposed to do but it seems to me it got taken over. What we do need is a new version of the UN where all countries get an equal say in Security matters and where the UN military forces are made up of citizens of the world with no allegiance to any country and where the force they can project is kept at safe levels for all.

The problem we have had in the past 60 years are all caused by super powers.

P



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


OH GOD NO.

We need to disband the UN which has TAKEN OVER all other countries and forced itself upon us all.

We need for DIPLOMACY to be nurtured, not FORCED and ENFORCED.

As it is the UN was supposed to be an organization FOR Global ORGANIZATION, NOT an authority on what MUST be done. It was supposed to be a place where a platform was provided for diplomacy to flourish.

It is not even supposed to have an army.


It is not that IT has been taken over, It always was a tool of globalists and a dream come true for them.

It must die.

The diplomatic problems of the modern world can be attributed to the UN, look at Israel.

edit on 8-3-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Explanation: S&F!

We don't NEED any of that crap!

We can simply pull out of the NPT and start building nukes ... and we have a LOT of uranium ok!


[Note: In the late 60's a federal labour government did a secret study on how long it would take Australia to build a nuke from go to whaoh .. and the answer was 6months because we have so much uranium that cascading centrifuges can easily produce enough in that time ... and that was 40yrs ago ok!]

We could also source homegrown efforts like Metal Storm.

We dont need the Super Hornets [which are indeed super] or the JSF p.o.s. as we could again build our own UCAVS. [pilots in the cockpit chauvansim needs to die ok
]

And although the Collins class submarine is also a p.o.s. the Australian navy has mastered the art of being completely silent with them and they have taken out almost entire US Naval Carrier groups in War Games.

Personal Disclosure: We are annexed by the USA so I find this as unsuprising in the least. :shk:

What a waste of my tax dollars!



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   
wasn't it not to long ago that china told australia to choose between them and the U.S.,
and didn't australia choose china?

if i'm correct, why didn't australia get the military harware from china.

i found a thread here about where china told them this, and i seem to remember reading here that australia agreed to some of the trems, but can't find a thread for it here.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The Super Hornets that are flying in Australia now are aging, and are flying alongside some A/B models. The US got rid of the A/B a long time ago. The ones in RAAF service have gone through a number of upgrades, making them more potent than the original version, but they suffer from the major problem that all Hornets suffer from, range/combat radius/loiter time. There's one combat load that has less than 300 nautical miles of combat radius, and the highest is less than 500 miles. With the delays in the F-35 program mounting, and costs running away out of control, it makes sense to build up the Super Hornet fleet, just in case. The Hornet fleet cost is just going to keep going up as they age.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


Because the Australians and US have had a military relationship for too long for them to get rid of. And Chinese hardware isn't as good as US hardware. It's improving, and improving quickly, but it's not on par yet. Add to that the fact that the Australians are going to be working with the US so they want to have hardware that integrates easily into that alliance.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Personally, I feel my land of Australia does in fact need to be able to protect itself. When you are as close as you are to America in terms of Relations with so few troops while This North Korea Bull # is happening, you want to be able to defend yourself.






top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join