More F-35's for RAAF?

optimist · by **optimist** » 16 Jul 2020, 06:58

If you take every half-witted think tank as gospel, you're going to have a busy life.
White papers and defence ministers are the only thing to listen to

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 16 Jul 2020, 20:51

The F-35 is terrible and Australia should definitely buy 200 of them to make up for whatever shortcomings they're complaining about :mrgreen:

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 17 Jul 2020, 01:41

The QE beehives have some space for Aussie bees. Cat's pajamas (Bees knees!).

geforcerfx · by **geforcerfx** » 23 Jul 2020, 18:21

weasel1962 wrote:The QE beehives have some space for Aussie bees. Cat's pajamas (Bees knees!).

Why would the aussies buy B's just to operate them on carriers that are typically based on the other side of the world from them when they own two ships that could be slightly modified to carry and operate F-35Bs on there own? The more the support gap is studied by them the more I see them trending towards maybe getting 20-30 F-35Bs for the Amphibs (maybe some V-22s for support and tanking).

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 23 Jul 2020, 19:11

geforcerfx wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:The QE beehives have some space for Aussie bees. Cat's pajamas (Bees knees!).

Why would the aussies buy B's just to operate them on carriers that are typically based on the other side of the world from them when they own two ships that could be slightly modified to carry and operate F-35Bs on there own? The more the support gap is studied by them the more I see them trending towards maybe getting 20-30 F-35Bs for the Amphibs (maybe some V-22s for support and tanking).

You're reading way too much into the post. USMC F-35Bs aren't bought to operate on the QEs yet there they are...

RAAF F-18 pilots are carrier qualified yet no one is arguing they were bought for operations onboard other carriers. Chill...

usafr · by **usafr** » 23 Jul 2020, 21:01

UK plans to operate at least one of its new carriers mostly in "Indo/Pacific" area with allied support ships and allied aircraft (USMC, Aussie?) F-35B's sharing deck space.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 23 Jul 2020, 22:12

'weasel1962' said: "...RAAF F-18 pilots are carrier qualified yet no one is arguing they were bought for operations onboard other carriers...." Please tell us more. Please provide a reference or two for this astonishing piece of information. Thanks.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 24 Jul 2020, 02:00

I like these posers. Australian harrier pilot serving on an British carrier...

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 24 Jul 2020, 02:06

weasel1962 wrote:I like these posers. Australian harrier pilot serving on an British carrier...

What are you referring to here? Where is the reference to this statement which needs context. Are you indicating the past or present. Without any other information or URL your statements are just silly. So how about some more details. Thanks.

element1loop · by **element1loop** » 24 Jul 2020, 05:26

beepa wrote:Wouldn't surprise if there were more calls for an expression of interest in the B21. If the US allow export sales and the price is not too exorbitant, it may be a good fit for long range ship sinking.

Very much agree, given the recently expressed intent of long-range strike capability that can change a potential enemy's calculus, would be indisputably provided by B-21 and complementary systems of systems, plus weapons, much of which already exists.

But this looks like more F-35, possibly with loyal-wingman, and potential to acquire whatever USN replaces SH BlockIII with (extending NGJ) down the road. More OTHR early warning energy plus more AWACS and a comparatively huge boost in missile defense and related systems.

IMO the continental air and missile defense should include 4 sqns x 12 F-35A each, with the 4 new smaller sqns dedicated to continental air defense, using long-range sensors against bombers and tactical strikers including anti-cruise missile early warning to provide target-quality data feed to short-range high performance SAM defenses around main operating bases and naval ports (think NASAM and CAMM).

But use the original 4 x 24 F-35A (proposed) as an offensive force along with F/A-18F/G force for attack and EA support.

MQ-4 for ISR, SkyGuardian uses JSM for anti-ship strike, P-8A + LRASM to crack bigger units plus anti-sub, then Romeos on DDG and frigate, all supported by both the defensive and offensive F-35 sqns.

So ...

(4 x 24) = 96 Offensive
(4 x 12) = 48 Defensive
12 for development, testing and attrition replacements
TOTAL = 156 x F-35

Add 12 x B-21 for credible long-range strike.

I don't see unfriendly powers being too keen to tangle with that, especially in Alliance context.

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 24 Jul 2020, 05:44

element1loop wrote:
beepa wrote:Wouldn't surprise if there were more calls for an expression of interest in the B21. If the US allow export sales and the price is not too exorbitant, it may be a good fit for long range ship sinking.

Very much agree, given the recently expressed intent of long-range strike capability that can change a potential enemy's calculus, would be indisputably provided by B-21 and complementary systems of systems, plus weapons, much of which already exists.

Never say never but this will never happen. The last thing the US wants is another ally complicating
strategic arms treaties; the SLBM sharing agreement with the UK is bad enough.

The last strategic bomber the US "exported" was the B-29 to serve as a Tu-4 surrogate for the RAF.

element1loop · by **element1loop** » 24 Jul 2020, 05:49

marauder2048 wrote:Never say never but ... complicating strategic arms treaties

Rare as hen's teeth.

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 24 Jul 2020, 06:10

element1loop wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Never say never but ... complicating strategic arms treaties

Rare as hen's teeth.

And there's the more practical matter of NG's production rate which will probably barely hit double figures annually.

Maybe way down the line a conventional-only variant (a la B-2C) could be realized that
would be sort of like the SSBN -> SSGN conversions under the treaties.

element1loop · by **element1loop** » 24 Jul 2020, 06:15

Corsair1963 wrote: Yet, the math is easily supportable....8 F-35's just to maintain 2 F-35's on station. Then consider the vast territory of Australia and the surrounding region....

Why would we be maintaining F-35s "on station"? AWACS will be tactical, not 24/7, so no escorts up.

We have long-range sensor early warning and tanker support to head off bombers, maritime patrol, drone and strikefighter as required, so don't have to use 8 to maintain 2. There are 1,000s of km of intervening early warning in most cases. It would be 2 sitting at the end of a strip with 2 backing-up, 1 or 2 tankers to service.

In the case of using F-35 sensors for EW and target tracking for missile defense, 4 squadrons of 12 F-35A would suffice to maintain 1 or 2 F-35A in orbit near defended locations.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 24 Jul 2020, 07:38

There's only Indonesia who can reach Australia & the 2 (and maybe 3) PLA CVBGs.

100 RAAF F-35s (with $billion worth of SDBs and LRASMs) are more than enough to handle those without anybody's help.

Can't see the business case for RAAF B-21s. They don't need it for Indonesia, not when Jakarta is within rocket range from christmas island. Who else do they need that for? China? Far cheaper to just put Bees on the Canberras.