Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22957
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Nov 2009, 06:34

Thumper3181, so these are your thoughts alone then. AFAIK the decision about what JSFs and how many for the USMC is being discussed with no fixed idea so far. If the CNO says this then I take that as a given no matter what you say. There are suggestions around from various think tanks asking that the USMC get a mix of JSFs for various reasons so that they can mix with USN more nicely. To me this whole argument is irrelevant until decision made and besides it has little relevance to initial topic of this thread but we soldier on regardless with all this guff about prejudices of various people. So be it. Here is a source for some "mixin' & matchin'":

Strategy for the Long Haul - USMC (CSBA) Center for Stategic Studies:

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA491834 (1.3Mb PDF)

F-35 Lightning II Multirole Fighter
"The Marine Corps currently possesses a mixed fleet of fixed-wing aircraft that it uses
to control the airspace above Marines, to support them with aerial fires, and to interdict
and attrite enemy forces at range. The Corps has thirteen squadrons of F/A-18
Hornets (A, C, and D models) and seven squadrons of AV-8B Harriers.122 The Service
plans to replace these aircraft with 420 F-35Bs,123 at a projected cost of approximately
$41 billion (a per-unit cost of $97 million).124 The Corps plans to purchase only the
“B” (STOVL) model in order to gain efficiencies in fielding a single type of aircraft and
maximize flexibility with Marine Air Wings composed entirely of interchangeable
F-35 squadrons. For the Corps, the appeal of an all-STOVL fleet is understandable
and compelling, but only if viewed from a Marine Corps perspective. If viewed more
broadly from the perspective of naval air power, other considerations come into play.
In April 2008, the Navy and Marine Corps signed the latest version of a Memorandum
of Agreement governing the integration of their tactical air fleets. The stated purpose
of the Tactical Air Integration (TAI) plan125 is “to provide Combatant and Joint Force
Commanders with flexible, responsive, interoperable and expeditionary forces.”126
It goes on to say,
Naval Aviation force projection is accomplished by the balanced integration of Marine
Corps TACAIR [tactical aircraft] squadrons into Carrier Air Wings (CVW) and, when
required, Navy squadrons into Marine Aircraft Wings (MAW). The goal is to exploit
revolutionary Network Centric Warfare and Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare concepts
to enhance power projection by tightly integrating Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs),
Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESGs), and Marine Air-Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs).127
Further,
The objective is to fill all operational and training requirements with the most appropriate
unit while balancing unit operational tempo across the force . . . This process furthers
TACAIR integration leading to a fully interdependent DON TACAIR force in which
VMFA [Marine Corps F/A-18] and VFA [Navy F/A-18] squadrons routinely deploy as part
of CVW and land-based expeditionary operations.128
So, while the Corps is pushing forward with its all-STOVL purchase, it must also
reach agreement with the Navy on how to effectively implement the tactical aircraft
integration plan.
In principle, the Marine Corps will provide a sufficient number of fixed-wing tactical
air squadrons to support full utilization of available flight decks represented by
the Navy’s eleven aircraft carriers. In return, the Navy will provide squadrons in direct
support of land-based operations as the need arises. It would seem, then, that
some level of commonality between Navy and Marine Corps aviation would be helpful.
The Corps’ commitment to an all-STOVL fleet appears to go in the opposite direction.
The two Sea Services are set to pursue two different tracks for their naval air
capability. The Navy has little choice in its selection of a Joint Strike Fighter model
since the whole point of having naval aviation is to project it from an aircraft carrier.
Airplanes that fly off modern carriers must be able to withstand the increased stresses
of launch and recovery. The F-35C (Navy variant) is being designed to account for
regular use in this environment, possessing a more robust set of landing gear and a
larger wing area (for increased lift at the slower speeds associated with launch and
recovery operations). It must also be able to operate at increasing distances given
the worsening anti-ship threats already discussed. The Marines seek to operate in
multiple worlds — flying tactical aircraft off carriers, amphibious assault ships, and
austere operating sites ashore. STOVL — short take-off vertical landing — gives the
Marines the ability to operate from a much broader set of locations than the F-35A
(conventional take-off and landing or CTOL, the version being purchased by the US
Air Force) or F-35C (Navy) models."

And much more in this vein from beginning of this quote on page physical page 84 (page 65 internal) to page. The recommendation of this study is for USMC to buy a mixed fleet of JSF-Bs & Cs.

"In view of the above, the Marine Corps should reconsider its all-STOVL policy and
purchase a mixed fleet of F-35B STOVL and F-35C Carrier Joint Strike Fighters — up
to eleven squadrons of F-35Cs132 to fulfill the Corps’ tactical aircraft integration commitment
to carrier-based, naval aviation wings, with the remainder F-35B STOVL
variants to support Marine Corps requirements for tactical aircraft support aboard
LHA/LHD platforms and operations at expeditionary bases ashore."
____________________

122. Only “active force” squadrons are listed here. The Corps also maintains one training squadron of F/A-
18s, one of AV-8Bs, and two reserve squadrons of F/A-18As.
123. The F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), comes in three variants: the F-35A,
a conventional take-off and landing aircraft being purchased by the US Air Force; the F-35B, the short
take-off vertical landing (STOVL) model being acquired by the US Marine Corps; and the F-35C, to
be purchased by the Navy and possessing heavier landing gear and a larger wing for aircraft carrier
operations.
124. Steve Kosiak and Barry D. Watts, US Fighter Modernization Plans: Near-Term Choices (Washington,
DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2007), p. 12. It should be noted that Marine Corps
aircraft are purchased by the Navy, using “blue in support of green” dollars.
125. Memorandum of Agreement Between Command, Naval Air Forces, and Deputy Commandant for
Aviation, United States Marine Corps, Subject: Department of the Navy Tactical Aircraft Integration,
(Washington, DC: April 17, 2008)
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

Thumper3181

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 05:49

Unread post17 Nov 2009, 08:16

Spaz, the original topic of this thread has been beaten to death. The idiocy of putting a ski jump on the gators or CVFs for that matter has been pointed out to you by not only myself but others ad nauseum. I am not sure of the point you are trying to make about Marine F-35Bs on CVNs but it's pretty clear that as of now if the Marines get their way that is what will happen. Your own article even indicates as much, but if you don't believe what you read then try this one which makes it even clearer that the Marines want an all F-35B force. It also clearly points out that congress has mandated that the Marines operate off of the Navy carriers as well. I would consider it a pretty good source.
A Marine fighter squadron is permanently attached to the wing. It is not an occasional thing. One out of every four carrier fighter squadrons is a marine squadron.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/20 ... f_070430m/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22957
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Nov 2009, 08:49

Thumper, you may consider the topic beaten to death. IF that is the case - THEN STOP! OK? :-) I'm happy to debate this topic as it was originally promulgated. I'm not interested in putting anything on existing flat decks that does not already exist. However others brought up the topic and then BEAT IT TO DEATH.

BTW the CVFs (if you are referring now to the new RN FAA carriers) will have ski jumps and the RAN LHDs will have ski jumps so that is relevant to my interest. In a nutshell: it seems that having a dedicated small ski jump carrier or two for the Marines to use exclusively is beginning to be not such a bad idea, given the lack of money to build new SUPER carriers - but I'll make it clear this is my own thought and often seen on the web because others think similarly. Not that it matters to me in the long run because my interest would be in the RN or RAN FAA and how they might use JSF-Bs etc.

I'm not quibbling about what your ideas might be but I would ask that you say they are your ideas (and not suggest that the argument is settled regarding the USMC buy of JSFs - it is not.) Hence my interest to find out if indeed it is settled and it is not. But then again I don't give a damn for how the USN & USMC work it out.

I'll stress again my interest is in how JSF-Bs will operate from flat decks (with / without ski jumps). BTW because your Congress makes a law does not mean same Congress cannot make a new law. Clearly the law forcing USN and USMC to operate Hornets together was made at a time when the aircraft were in common use.
Offline

bjr1028

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 516
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009, 03:34
  • Location: Dubuque, IA

Unread post17 Nov 2009, 17:31

Thumper3181 wrote:Spaz, the original topic of this thread has been beaten to death. The idiocy of putting a ski jump on the gators or CVFs for that matter has been pointed out to you by not only myself but others ad nauseum. I am not sure of the point you are trying to make about Marine F-35Bs on CVNs but it's pretty clear that as of now if the Marines get their way that is what will happen. Your own article even indicates as much, but if you don't believe what you read then try this one which makes it even clearer that the Marines want an all F-35B force. It also clearly points out that congress has mandated that the Marines operate off of the Navy carriers as well. I would consider it a pretty good source.
A Marine fighter squadron is permanently attached to the wing. It is not an occasional thing. One out of every four carrier fighter squadrons is a marine squadron.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/20 ... f_070430m/


They're downplaying it. 2 Minutes seems a bit low. You can operate the F-35B too ways off of a Nimitz. 1) Use the JBDs, launch them air to air only or with very little fuel and performance an immediate tanking. 2) Add a fifth JBD amidships 2-300ft behind the port bow for use by F-35Bs. You'll also probably have to add a third deck axial configuration for launch and recovery for F-35Bs. As for the advantage of forward basing, when was the last time a Marine squadron not on a ground rotation actually came ashore. The Harriers on the ships pretty much stay on the ships. There is also no way either the CAG and the battle group commander would allow a squadron assigned to the carrier to detach.
Last edited by bjr1028 on 17 Nov 2009, 17:52, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

bjr1028

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 516
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009, 03:34
  • Location: Dubuque, IA

Unread post17 Nov 2009, 17:51

spazsinbad wrote:Thumper, you may consider the topic beaten to death. IF that is the case - THEN STOP! OK? :-) I'm happy to debate this topic as it was originally promulgated. I'm not interested in putting anything on existing flat decks that does not already exist. However others brought up the topic and then BEAT IT TO DEATH.

BTW the CVFs (if you are referring now to the new RN FAA carriers) will have ski jumps and the RAN LHDs will have ski jumps so that is relevant to my interest. In a nutshell: it seems that having a dedicated small ski jump carrier or two for the Marines to use exclusively is beginning to be not such a bad idea, given the lack of money to build new SUPER carriers - but I'll make it clear this is my own thought and often seen on the web because others think similarly. Not that it matters to me in the long run because my interest would be in the RN or RAN FAA and how they might use JSF-Bs etc.


Neither the RAAF nor the RAN has any plans to buy the F-35B. The reason the ski-jumps are there is because it would have cost more to remove them (the RAN asked Navatia about that). If you're looking for a Melbourne replacement, keep dreaming.

I'm not quibbling about what your ideas might be but I would ask that you say they are your ideas (and not suggest that the argument is settled regarding the USMC buy of JSFs - it is not.) Hence my interest to find out if indeed it is settled and it is not. But then again I don't give a damn for how the USN & USMC work it out.

I'll stress again my interest is in how JSF-Bs will operate from flat decks (with / without ski jumps). BTW because your Congress makes a law does not mean same Congress cannot make a new law. Clearly the law forcing USN and USMC to operate Hornets together was made at a time when the aircraft were in common use.


Here's what congress would have to contend with for spazsinbad's law.
1) refit of all Nimtiz-class carriers for STOVL aircraft or replacement with STOVL carriers.
2) Cancellation of E-2D and APY-9 radar and replacement with either a completely new radar or adoption of helicopter AEW with 1/3rd the range and 1/5th the number of targets that can be tracked.
3) Rewriting of the entire naval aviation training syllabus.
4) early retirement of F-18E/Fs
5) development of electronic attack and recon capabilities for the F-35B.

Billions spent on much less capable platform to make some kid in Australia happy.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22957
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Nov 2009, 18:26

bjr1028, it is obvious you have no idea what I have been saying in this thread and to claim in your numbered points that is what I am saying is plainly ridiculous. Those points are yours alone and not mine. I'll say again - however the USN / USMC work out how they operate the C & B separately or together or not at all is of no interest to me. Start your own thread about the issues you claim required to operate (in your own dreams) apparently the JSF-B in the USN/USMC. Thanks.

Because the RN FAA are obviously smart, learning & planning how to operate the JSF-B - even before it is flying, the RAN can learn from their experience for their own future. I'll admit that most likely it would take a third specially outfitted LHD to operate JSF-Bs in the RAN likely with RAAF pilots but it is not in the realm of the impossible. Unlike some understanding what this thread is supposed to be about. :-)
Offline

gf0012-aust

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2009, 07:44

Unread post17 Nov 2009, 19:50

spazsinbad wrote:Because the RN FAA are obviously smart, learning & planning how to operate the JSF-B - even before it is flying, the RAN can learn from their experience for their own future. I'll admit that most likely it would take a third specially outfitted LHD to operate JSF-Bs in the RAN likely with RAAF pilots but it is not in the realm of the impossible. Unlike some understanding what this thread is supposed to be about. :-)


There are no RAN/RAAF pilots cross training or exchanged with RN/RAF US Services, Spanish, Italian or French forces for fixed wing combat air off of ships. whenever we are about to transition to new capabilities which effect doctrine we send people out to exchange and/or learn. we atypically do that 2 years ahead of evolution. eg we had people dealing with shornet issues as soon as getting the plane was at a higher level of confidence. eg we did the same with wedgetail and the C17's) ie we don't get assets "cold" without learning from other owners about "business" and operational impact. Its not the way we do "business"

There are RAAF pilots who are cross training and exchanged with like minded allies for expeditionary roles with amphibious assets... (ie rotary)

there has been no change in doctrine for RAN/RAAF pilots or no change in development for doctrine for RAN/RAAF fixed wing CAS on fleet assets (see point 2)

the use of RAAF pilots on RAN assets has been looked at years ago and was dropped when the decision not to have a fixed wing combat air element created. ie the RN/RAF model was looked at but abandoned.

at this stage it is impossible. the Minister had a meeting with our division earlier this week. there is no money for any program that may fall out of scope. the govt will only continue to fund programs in scope. programs that fall out of scope are career limiting moves - its been made clear over the last 10 months what the govt expects of Defence and sister orgs to get done.

to get fixed wing combat air back onto RAN assets such as the LH's would see a number of "tells" falling into place. None of those are happening - and if there was an intent then they would have been formed some 3 years ago to converge with IOC for the JSF, commissioning date for the LH's and it would impact on a number of other Aust Def programs initimately effected by association. again - none are happening.

fixed wing combat air in the RAN FAA isn't even remotely on the cards - certainly not for the next 10 years. Can it happen? sure. Will it happen? well, there are a whole raft of other things that have to be in place before there were public announcements. there are zero supporting events happening, so its apparent that all 3 services are not gearing up for a non expeditionary but organic FAA/RAAF capability on the LH's or issues involving our fixed wing air sans organic fleet air in support of that doctrine.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22957
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Nov 2009, 21:51

gf0012-aust, notwithstanding any 'inside' knowledge you have, in the timescale of usefulness of LHDs and JSFs for Australia, the possibility of obtaining extra JSFs (albeit B models) for probably another (3rd) LHD is not impossible. I'm happy to acknowledge this combination won't be seen in the near future, as you suggest. Frankly whatever CRABS (RAAF Pilots) say about shipboard operations would be useless given their general lack of knowledge; except for those fortunate few who have managed deck landings during their USN training on Hornets, and now on Super Hornets. Thankfully the current Chief of Air Force (CAF) has such training, even from his days as an A4G pilot in the RAN FAA. :-)
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22957
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Nov 2009, 00:26

I wonder IF the Brits have factored in this issue of deck heating? (likely answer - YES):

https://www.fbo.gov/download/2ed/2edead ... 10_v20.pdf (0.56Mb)

Thermal Management System (TMS)
"DARPA is soliciting innovative research proposals in the area of Thermal Management Systems (TMS) for aircraft landing decks. The deployment of the MV-22 Osprey has resulted in ship flight deck buckling that has been attributed to the excessive heat impact from engine exhaust plumes. Navy studies have indicated that repeated deck buckling will likely cause deck failure before planned ship life. With the upcoming deployment of the F-35B Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), it is anticipated that the engine exhaust plumes may have a more severe thermo-mechanical impact on the non-skid surface and flight deck structure of ships. Currently, there are no available strategies to mitigate deck buckling and thermal-mechanical deck failure other than heavy structural modifications. The goal of this effort is to exploit thermal management technologies that incorporate a thermally and functionally stable non-skid surface which meets Navy requirements for application, safety, and performance. Eligible technologies should consist of an integrated Thermal Management System (TMS) that mitigates the thermo-mechanical structural impact of the F-35B engine exhaust plumes. It is anticipated that the integrated TMS will be implemented on Navy Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) 1 and Landing Helicopter Assault (LHA) 6 Class amphibious assault ships.
A responsive proposal to the TMS BAA will outline the development of a system that can be installed on top of the existing decks on amphibious assault ships, and can be used to mitigate the thermal loading that is applied by vertical and short take off and landing aircraft. The proposed system will need to incorporate a thermally stable non-skid that is capable of operating under these extreme conditions. Proposals that incorporate advanced, highly wear resistant non-skids, such as amorphous metal coatings, are encouraged. DARPA anticipates that, with proper servicing and repair, the thermally stable non-skid will exhibit a lifetime consistent with the overall integrated Thermal Management System. Any routine servicing and repair required by the thermally stable non-skid must be capable of being performed on the flight deck without major disruptions to shipboard operations. The proposed research and development should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in systems. Specifically excluded are efforts that primarily result in evolutionary improvements to the existing technologies or commercially available systems."
Offline

gf0012-aust

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2009, 07:44

Unread post18 Nov 2009, 03:17

spazsinbad wrote:gf0012-aust, notwithstanding any 'inside' knowledge you have, in the timescale of usefulness of LHDs and JSFs for Australia, the possibility of obtaining extra JSFs (albeit B models) for probably another (3rd) LHD is not impossible. I'm happy to acknowledge this combination won't be seen in the near future, as you suggest. Frankly whatever CRABS (RAAF Pilots) say about shipboard operations would be useless given their general lack of knowledge; except for those fortunate few who have managed deck landings during their USN training on Hornets, and now on Super Hornets. Thankfully the current Chief of Air Force (CAF) has such training, even from his days as an A4G pilot in the RAN FAA. :-)


Our ORBAT structure is mapped out to 2025. JSF stumpies don't appear in any of it. :)

we could also restart our nuke weapons program from the 70's, or build nuke subs based on what tech sets we have access and capability to do etc.... but we won't.

JSF stumpies before 2025 (if at all) are in the same probability boat.

granted we could end up in a shooting war in 2015 and all bets are off, but as of now and planned out to 2030, there is no planned fixed wing combat FAA even remotely planned for.

to do so means planning and implementing things years ahead of IOC etc... none of that is in place let alone under consideration.

in procurement intent - the issue is always the other capability "tells" which give a clue - its never the primary platform which gives the hints.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22957
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Nov 2009, 03:50

A fifteen year plan is just that. IF there is no flexibility or contingency planning I would be astounded. Perhaps you are just not aware of it. Perhaps what you are saying says something about 'planning' in todays ADF but being sure of a plan out to 2030 is uncanny. JSF-Bs will be well thought out and built by that time, with initial 2 RAN LHDs starting to rust out. Then we get new build suitable craft for 'Super JSF-Bs'. I'm an eternal optimist. :-)
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

gf0012-aust

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2009, 07:44

Unread post18 Nov 2009, 06:34

spazsinbad wrote:A fifteen year plan is just that. IF there is no flexibility or contingency planning I would be astounded.


in procurement intent - the issue is always the other capability "tells" which give a clue - its never the primary platform which gives the hints.

I'm lucky enough to have seen the classified versions of the whitepaper due to my job. I reckon I would have seen any clue. however, if it was material that was classified then I wouldn't be discussing that specific issue on an open forum. there is however a degree of relationship between the unclass whitepaper and the classified whitepaper. whats fundamentally different is detail - not content. There is no reference to manned combat FAA in Plan Blue either.

re contingencies, well of course we have contingencies - we have various plans that deal with any number of scenarios. thats what ends up on the bosses (PM's) desk whenever something in our region goes to custard and we need to consider exercising a military response.

that is however completely separate from the reality that if we are to get fixed wing combat air in place then a whole pile of other things need to started before we even give out squadron numbers. there are planning tells, training tells, future integration tells that impact on a whole raft of extant programs and projects. it cannot be done in isolation. It will definitely not happen under the current political ideology - it will definitely not happen when its been made repeatedly and abundantly clear to us that we aren't getting any more money and that the Govt will not wear scope creep of any magnitude in any project. NACC and BACC have crueled it for everyone as far as that goes. The fat ships politically are unacceptable to this govt if they are perceived as force projection assets. getting fixed wing combat FAA is an anathema to everything this govt seeks to promote to our neighbours.

there's no point in being optimistic if it ignores how we do business, how the business needs to be done, whats required to support that business and how we are to raise train and sustain that business.

we are planned to 2030. we know what we are getting. short of going to war at short notice and having a compelling procurement need where our biggest primary ally is not going to provide us with capability platform skillsets outside of our extant force structure - then its not happening.

wishing it so does not change the reality matrix of what we would be doing now.

geez we're already planning for assets IOC 2025 for RAAF - and it doesn't include STOVL aircraft.

in 2030 we could decide to plan for nuke subs - but should we get excited now? it's a harsh and realistic and respounding no.

could the region change tomorrow? well probability and possibility are always planned for - but the region would have to go seriously hot, our neighbours would need to do a 180, the US would need to invoke a 21st cent version of the monroe doctrine and we would need to change the way we look at extant doctrine significantly to accomodate same.

these things need to be looked at in the cold hard light of force planning around coherent arguments. the threat matrix, the political will, the political intent, the budget, extant doctrine and indeed the uniform advice given to govt says repeatedly no.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22957
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Nov 2009, 06:43

Yadda Yadda Yadda. :-) I'm old enough to have seen plans change in an instant. I guess the 'tells' told well about an instaneous (apparently) decision to buy a bunch of Super Hornets for Oz (I'm not complaining) when the RAAF biggies had just told Parliament (enquiry) that they were not needed. In the political sphere things change quickly despite boring long term plans. You knew that. I was around when the RAN FAA was going to get a second hand through deck cruiser - then not. Buga. Just the other day there was a stupid UK newspaper story about MoD selling a 'second hand/ unwanted' CVF to India - since denied strongly by MoD BTW. All kinds of shite happens which often makes no sense at all. As long as it is for the good - I don't mind. :-)
Offline

gf0012-aust

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2009, 07:44

Unread post18 Nov 2009, 06:57

spazsinbad wrote:I guess the 'tells' told well about an instaneous (apparently) decision to buy a bunch of Super Hornets for Oz (I'm not complaining) when the RAAF biggies had just told Parliament (enquiry) that they were not needed.


we had people on exchange dealing with SHornets 2 years before the announced decision - none of that was public domain - and yet for everyone in defence that was a pretty big tell of intent. the govt got shornets as it had a defencible fit against demobbing the pigs. The abrams were defensible because the leos were uneconomical to prepare for the MEAO. The fat ships were held against the manoora and kanimbla because those ships were getting a flogging. The C17's were purchased because we were spending dead money on ukrainian leases. etc etc.... there is not one element of opportunity for the govt to trot out fixed wing combat air when the fat ships were procured for expeditionary work and in accordance with the imprimatur of the sister services.

when we were getting C17's we already had people on exchange,
when we got the abrams we already had people in the US with their blackhats

none of this operates in isolation. when we get gear -even at short notice, we have arranged the exchanges and training.

major capital acquisition such as fixed wing air has to go through to the nat security council - we cannot do a rapid acquisition because rapid only deals with assets that don't have a sustainment component in the approval process.

you do realise that the processes on procurement in australia changed with Kinnaird? and that we can do zero, zip, nada, zilch without cabinet involvement and the NSC. the days of snap purchases are long gone.

there needs to be an injection of reality when we're discussing procurement - we don't and can't go out and just buy major capital gear. every one of the short procurement buys that you can drag up in the last 10 years involved having people offshore and getting things in place years before the announcements.

re the Chief of Air being an ex scooter driver - well, the Chief of Navy is an ex clearance diver - I can't see him making the RAN turn into a specwarrie outfit. prev association doesn't translate to weighting or impacting on procurement decisions. :)
Last edited by gf0012-aust on 18 Nov 2009, 08:02, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Thumper3181

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 05:49

Unread post18 Nov 2009, 07:53

spazsinbad wrote:Yadda Yadda Yadda. :-) I'm old enough to have seen plans change in an instant. I guess the 'tells' told well about an instaneous (apparently) decision to buy a bunch of Super Hornets for Oz (I'm not complaining) when the RAAF biggies had just told Parliament (enquiry) that they were not needed. In the political sphere things change quickly despite boring long term plans. You knew that. I was around when the RAN FAA was going to get a second hand through deck cruiser - then not. Buga. Just the other day there was a stupid UK newspaper story about MoD selling a 'second hand/ unwanted' CVF to India - since denied strongly by MoD BTW. All kinds of shite happens which often makes no sense at all. As long as it is for the good - I don't mind. :-)


Spaz I think what he is trying to say is that there are procedures that must be followed that entail lead time. If the F-35B was in the cards you would have seen advanced planning for it already. Stop beating another dead horse.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests