Does the RAN have any plans to get back in the carrier game?

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

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21389
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Nov 2017, 07:59

For the eternal boosters for Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs - I thank them for their service. However I live in Australia, I'm a former A4G pilot in the old Fixed Wing Fleet Air Arm of that country. Some online acquaintances were also former A4G pilots after I left in 1975, these chaps going to fly the SHAR (Sea Harrier) for the UK after our fixed wing folded 1982-84. I'm in contact with some of these pilots (some also did exchange duty with the USMC and their AV-8As of that time). Some have the knowledge of what it would take for 'Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs' however the ADF does not have that interest at moment.

Many times I have laid out my opinion on this matter in other threads, some people have picked up on this and that is a good thing; but just 'waving a magic wand' - using Imagineering - does not make it so. The Australian Government could 'easily' do a lot of things but they have not expressed an interest in 'Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs' for some years now, with the idea squashed publically at least. Yes in the distant past there was interest but not now - too much else to do AFAIK. For sure plans change - that will be on my gravestone - if I plan to die. But if a mouthpiece for the RAN/ADF says what I have quoted above then that is that for the moment. Get over it. I have. The ADF have. Others should do the same.

Want to know more about the RAN FAA of old? Go here & follow directions: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/

Specifically to download the latest free 4.4Gb PDF about those years and the potential of the F-35B (even on an LHD?):

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... 1dVcjVkUGc

FILE: 04apr17RANFAAskyhawkA4Gpp12,410.pdf (4.4Gb)

RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk Scrapbook History 04 April 2017 edition of 12,410 pages. This PDF must be downloaded first by right mouse clicking on the file to 'DOWNLOAD' to your computer. There will be two error messages because the file is so large. Open the saved PDF with the latest version of Adobe Reader suitable for your Operating System for best viewing results.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4584
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post27 Nov 2017, 08:46

Spazsinbad - I've for one have always respected your opinions and your service. Yet, in this case we will just have to agree to disagree.......


RESPECTFULLY
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21389
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Nov 2017, 08:59

The title of this thread? Does the RAN have any plans to get back in the carrier game? Nope. End of story - for now.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7425
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post27 Nov 2017, 09:32

spazsinbad wrote:The title of this thread? Does the RAN have any plans to get back in the carrier game? Nope. End of story - for now.

Yep.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4584
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post27 Nov 2017, 09:50

I can agree with that.....(for now) :wink:
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1014
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post27 Nov 2017, 10:40

spazsinbad wrote:Does the RAN have any plans to get back into the carrier game?


Nope. /end thread
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21389
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Nov 2017, 10:48

:devil: Nope - we can play string along.... :doh:
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1376
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post27 Nov 2017, 17:26

Just to be different, I can reply to the thread's title/question in Portuguese:

- Não :mrgreen:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21389
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Jan 2018, 02:04

Just being cantankerous 'here we go - with another Bob Rogers show' (as in "Gentlemen - Start Your Engines") more follow.
Should Australia buy the F-35B for LHD
04 Jan 2018 Andrew Serchen (former RAN Air Warfare [maybe aircrew?])

"There has been a significant amount of recent media attention on the possibility of Japan acquiring the F-35B Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant to operate from their helicopter carriers. As a result, I have seen renewed speculation as to whether Australia will also expand its current purchase order for F-35A (conventional) to include some of the F-35B models.

A few years back, I was fortunate enough to undertake the Royal Canadian Air Force's (RCAF) Aerospace Systems Course (ASC). As part of the course, I wrote a research paper on this exact topic and feel that it may be poignant to once again address the major points within that....

...In order to determine if any... advantage could be gained, sea-based operations of the F-35B from the ADF Landing Helicopter Dockship (LHD) would need to be quantified.... [then lots of back & forth which we have seen before]

...Ultimately, I determined that given the F‑35B’s inability to meet all strategic requirements, it would not be a justifiable procurement option to replace the Super Hornet. Additionally, the embarked F‑35B would not add significant global reach over that offered by the F‑35A when considering the strategic requirement to maintain an amphibious presence in the South Pacific. These determinations in combination with the F‑35B’s associated costs (16% more per aircraft, 139% more per engine and an estimated $500M per LHD for design changes) necessitate the recommendation that the ADF not procure the F-35B."

Source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-a ... w-serchen/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4584
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post08 Jan 2018, 03:51

spazsinbad wrote:Just being cantankerous 'here we go - with another Bob Rogers show' (as in "Gentlemen - Start Your Engines") more follow.
Should Australia buy the F-35B for LHD
04 Jan 2018 Andrew Serchen (former RAN Air Warfare [maybe aircrew?])

"There has been a significant amount of recent media attention on the possibility of Japan acquiring the F-35B Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant to operate from their helicopter carriers. As a result, I have seen renewed speculation as to whether Australia will also expand its current purchase order for F-35A (conventional) to include some of the F-35B models.

A few years back, I was fortunate enough to undertake the Royal Canadian Air Force's (RCAF) Aerospace Systems Course (ASC). As part of the course, I wrote a research paper on this exact topic and feel that it may be poignant to once again address the major points within that....

...In order to determine if any... advantage could be gained, sea-based operations of the F-35B from the ADF Landing Helicopter Dockship (LHD) would need to be quantified.... [then lots of back & forth which we have seen before]

...Ultimately, I determined that given the F‑35B’s inability to meet all strategic requirements, it would not be a justifiable procurement option to replace the Super Hornet. Additionally, the embarked F‑35B would not add significant global reach over that offered by the F‑35A when considering the strategic requirement to maintain an amphibious presence in the South Pacific. These determinations in combination with the F‑35B’s associated costs (16% more per aircraft, 139% more per engine and an estimated $500M per LHD for design changes) necessitate the recommendation that the ADF not procure the F-35B."

Source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-a ... w-serchen/


Very flawed article on many levels.....one example is while the F-35B has less range than the land based F-35A. The former still have more range than many 4/4.5 Generation Fighters. Including the RAAF own Super Hornets/Growlers. As a matter of fact the F-35B carries more internal fuel than either of them!
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1127
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post08 Jan 2018, 05:01

Corsair1963 wrote:...
Very flawed article on many levels.....one example is while the F-35B has less range than the land based F-35A. ...


A continuing false framework for STOVL operations. The "range" for STOVL ops is generally not relevant. The USMC AV8Bs routinely turned more sorties than "longer range" aircraft from long runway bases. That's simply because FARPS closer to the targets is ... well short ranged. Targets from ally nations, whether Italy or England tend to be further away. Thus the "range" of the AV8B or F-35B is well ... more than range of an aircraft taking hours just to get to the theatre to start. Range can sometimes be a rather squishy specification.

MHO,
BP
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4584
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post08 Jan 2018, 05:11

blindpilot wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:...
Very flawed article on many levels.....one example is while the F-35B has less range than the land based F-35A. ...


A continuing false framework for STOVL operations. The "range" for STOVL ops is generally not relevant. The USMC AV8Bs routinely turned more sorties than "longer range" aircraft from long runway bases. That's simply because FARPS closer to the targets is ... well short ranged. Targets from ally nations, whether Italy or England tend to be further away. Thus the "range" of the AV8B or F-35B is well ... more than range of an aircraft taking hours just to get to the theatre to start. Range can sometimes be a rather squishy specification.

MHO,
BP


Good point and the author seem more concern comparing the F-35B vs F-35A. (Apples & Oranges) Than the merits of the former in said application. :?
Offline

marauder2048

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 335
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post08 Jan 2018, 05:57

I'm a little unclear on the CONOPS for the Canberra class. Australia does not have
marinized attack helicopters so would amphibious operations rely on surface ship
bombardment and land based aircraft for fire support?
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 720
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post08 Jan 2018, 06:14

blindpilot wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:...
Very flawed article on many levels.....one example is while the F-35B has less range than the land based F-35A. ...


A continuing false framework for STOVL operations. The "range" for STOVL ops is generally not relevant. The USMC AV8Bs routinely turned more sorties than "longer range" aircraft from long runway bases. That's simply because FARPS closer to the targets is ... well short ranged. Targets from ally nations, whether Italy or England tend to be further away. Thus the "range" of the AV8B or F-35B is well ... more than range of an aircraft taking hours just to get to the theatre to start. Range can sometimes be a rather squishy specification.

MHO,
BP

When you add USN A2A refuelling or USAF tankers, it's another step again.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21389
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Jan 2018, 06:52

marauder2048 wrote:I'm a little unclear on the CONOPS for the Canberra class. Australia does not have
marinized attack helicopters so would amphibious operations rely on surface ship
bombardment and land based aircraft for fire support?

There was a recent explanation by CoN Chief of Navy (RAN) about LHD where IIRC it is made clear it is not going into harms way nor making contested landings from the sea. RAN LHDs are not USN/USMC LHAs with accompanying ships/aircraft and suchlike support. RAN/Army are not 'breaking down doors' from the sea as such. For me that is OK as I wish to see the LHD task group (RAN) better protected when necessary by embarking some RAAF F-35Bs however these are for FLEET DEFENCE & not for CAS for amphibious landings. Sure the F-35Bs can disembark to be supported by RAAF again.

Wade through this small article for an idea of what the RAN have in mind (I'm in thunderstorm city at moment so I'm probably going offline unable to search for CoN speech - back later).
"...We’re not aspiring for this to be a significant force projection capability – because to be perfectly frank that is beyond the capacity we have designed and trained for..." [fuller quote below]
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53230&p=377751&hilit=Chief+Navy#p377751

Australia’s Amphibious Force Nearing Full Operational Capability
05 Oct 2017 Megan Eckstein

"McLachlan [Maj. Gen. Paul McLachlan, commander of the Deployable Joint Force Headquarter and the Australian Army’s 1st Division] said the international component of RIMPAC and again at Talisman Saber 2017 were important, given the vision for Australia’s amphibious force. “We’re a small-middle power, we have no aspirations of unilateral force projection, but certainly the ability to transport and sustain forces, joint forces within the region is an incredibly important capability and something that the government decided that we would pursue,” the general said.

“We strive to become a contemporary force, and in a nation that is as much an island as Australia is, it makes absolutely no sense if you don’t have the capacity to deploy a legitimate and competent amphibious capability. We’re not aspiring for this to be a significant force projection capability – because to be perfectly frank that is beyond the capacity we have designed and trained for – but that capability would certainly be a highly competent contribution to a multinational coalition in a higher threat spectrum, if that were required and authorized. Closer to home, it gives us an amazing capability to go and help the region, and that is one of the key aspects that we are building and training this force to deliver.”

Though intuitive for the island to have an amphibious force that can respond to natural disasters or join Pacific allies in a bigger fight, the development of the force hasn’t been without challenges. First was finding the manpower. The ADF decided early on it couldn’t support a Marine Corps, so the venture would have to be a joint service one, with a hybrid model that relied on some full-time experts and some rotating units...."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2017/10/05/austra ... more-28627
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 15 guests