The Navy Vol_64_Part2 2002 - Navy League of Australia

I ROM I 111 ( Kim s M MPublicity - Good and not so goodIn the last issue of THE NAVY ihe writer remarked "For betteror worse the Navy receives a fair share of publicity (at timesmore than it wants) ...". Looking back over the past sixmonths it is hard to know whether the considerable amount ofpublicity received by the RAN. prompted in the main by the'children overboard' affair, has been good for die service ornot.On balance, in mid-May when this item is written, one isinclined to think the seagoing people have gained respect inthe public's estimation but that this has not been reflectedamong those ashore, in particular in the upper echelons of theDefence Department.In his youth the writer recalls that one of the exercisesundertaken by cadets, scouts and others was to pass a simplemessage via a chain of messengers. As often as not and nomatter how short the chain, the message was quite differentby the time it reached its destination. It might be thoughtsurprising that despite the enormous advances incommunications the problem seems to continue in ourDefence Department.If damage temporary or otherwise was caused toreputations in Defence and in the offices of the PrimeMinister and Defence Minister, it was not caused so much bymishandling of messages originating in HMAS ADELAIDEas they passed through various channels to their destination,as to proceedings at the subsequent inquiry into a "CertainMaritime Incident". Comment on several of the statementsmade in the course of the inquiry are contained in the writer'sObservations' in this issue of THE NAVY.The Defence Department spends quite a lot of money onpublic relations and creating a favourable impression:however, one relatively small incident that happens to attractmedia attention can create impressions in the public mind noamount of money can buy.By Geoff EvansThe BattleshipsGiveawayJoin the Navy League of Australia toda> and be in therunning for a free copy of Ajrbrilliant brand new TVdocumentary The BattlesfttHPtiec 'Product Review'this edition).The first eight peopleedition will be eligibleapplication.Thanks to Roadshowdoeumeniarx Tin Battleshipsthe Nav> League ofmagazine. Make sureI or Video copy of theconsidered lor our»in the Nawthe publication dale ol th •A RN F/A 2 Sea Harrier. The Sea Harrier of loda) is a different beast from its l-'alklands War days. The aircraft employs a very sophisticated air-search radar,ihe 'Blue-Vixen', and AMRAAMs (Advanced Medium Range Air-Air Missiles) for long range air superiority tasks and was until very recently, consideredthe best air superiority fighter in Europe. (RN)The concept of producing a practical, winged, aircraft able to use aerodynamic lift for flight, yet capable of VerticalTake Off and Landing (VTOL) has fascinated designers since the dawn of powered flight. Whilst helicopters haveachieved it. their fixed wing cousins have not, to anything like the same degree.During World War II. the Germans produced a VTO (no 'L'because it did not land) 'target defence interceptor' called theBachem BA 349 'Natter'. It was powered by a single WalterHWK 109 rocket motor augmented by four boosters andlaunched vertically up a railed structure 80 feet high. It had arate of climb in excess of 35.000 feet per minute but apowered endurance of only two minutes and was. in effect, a'manned missile' intended to intercept daylight bombingraids. Il was armed with 33 Type R4M unguided rocketprojectiles in the nose and. as soon as he had fired them, thepilot ejected himself and the rocket motor for parachutedescents while the remaining wooden airframe structurecrashed to the ground. Ten were deployed to Kircheim-on-Teck in April 1945 but the war ended before they could beused operationally.The "Natter" was a weapon of desperation but. no doubtstimulated by it. the Admiralty wrote a more rationalspecification in 1945 for a "quick reaction" fighter capablc ofcountering Kamikaze aircraft. The Fairey Aviation Companysketched a design for a small, turbojet powered, delta winged'tail sitter' that achieved VTO by being boosted up rails fixedto a carrier's flight deck. It would have landed 'more or less'conventionally. The end of the war against Japan took theurgency out of the requirement but it continued as a post warresearch project w ith some interest from the RN and RAF. Anumber of scale models were launched vertically from a railstructure at WRE Woomera. There was some USN interest inturbo-prop powered 'tail sitters' in the USA at the same timebut these, too. came to nothing and the concept proved to be adead end.High speed research studies carried out at the RoyalAircraft Establishment. Farnborough. in the late 1940s ledscientists to predict that future supersonic aircraft would needwings so small that conventional take off and landing on flightdecks would not be possible. Thus, they believed VTOLwould be inevitable for future generations of fast jets becausethere was no other way of operating them. The concept hadnothing to do with simplified deck operations or improvingrough sea landing capability.By 1954. the Admiralty's Construction Department hadprepared plans for a light fleet carrier capable of operating thenew Supermarine Nl 13 (Scimitar) fighter in the short term butsuitable for the operation of VTOL aircraft in the mid 1960s.The design was unfettered with conflicting requirements and.although not pcrfect. had greater aircraft operating potentialthan the Invincible class designed 15 years later. The samedepartment produced sketch proposals for modifications to theMajestic class that would have enabled MELBOURNE andSYDNEY to operate the same types.Ashore. NATO became interested in VTOL strike fighters.This followed a large and expensive programme of airfieldconstruction in Europe intended to enable tactical aircraft tosupport NATO armies against any Soviet aggression. Despitethe evidence from two world wars and Korea that airfields arcextremely difficult to destroy, a belief grew that the newconcrete runways and hard-standings were vulnerable toattack and that aircraft should be dispersed "into the field".The Treaty Organisation was trying to standardise a numberof weapons and systems at the time, ranging from rifles andtheir ammunition to radars. In consequence two relevant14 VOL 64 NO. 2 IHE NAVYTHE NAVYVOL. 64 NO. 3 15