F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft carrier

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 28 Dec 2018, 01:07

That may be the case however I PROTEST that that detail (13 years etc. all up including PERSONNEL) should have been revealed from the getgo. Notice how I QUOTED official sources myself but JUST FOR THE AIRCRAFT as most quotes for aircraft are quoted around here. IF there is a change from that standard IT SHOULD BE REVEALED - CaPicHE? Comprende?

With unbated breath I'm awaiting the fifty year ALL UP COST INCLUDING Personnel and all the other flotsam and Jetsam for the LHDs and then and then ….. the all up WhenEVERs for a certain number of F-35Bs with all their etc and etcs. :doh:

Don't tell me this is the way Oz does it when Oz also provides prices for aircraft with their bits as required and I quoted.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 28 Dec 2018, 01:14

The RAAF would have done their budget for the AUP of the F-35A incl pilots etc which has already been approved. The F-35B is really incremental cost. Mostly front loaded i.e. upfront with minimal difference in annual sustainment cost.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 28 Dec 2018, 01:32

I appreciate the knowledge/detail input however it must be clear 'what is what' etc. Otherwise a NUMBER without any detail is worthless (to me anyway). :roll:

Really if one asks the price then one cannot afford it. :mrgreen:

Sure it is all just speculation at moment and I personally am pissed that more detail about what needs to happen to our LHDs to operate (even in emergency) an F-35B would be well appreciated. Without such detail we go around in circles eh. <sigh>

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 28 Dec 2018, 04:24

Agreed, but I suspect politics is at play. If the RAN/RAAF came up to say that the whole LHD upgrade amounts to a princely A$100m, then there will be a lot more push towards B. Much easier not to say anything. No details = no debate.

optimist · by **optimist** » 28 Dec 2018, 05:24

I don't know why it's so hard to accept that ADF will not buy a f-35b to put on the 2 existing 2 LHDs. They are both fully committed. If they do go for a naval wing, it will be with new ships, probably 2 flat tops, so there is always one available and everything else that is needed. I can't see them having just the 3 LHDs and setting all 3 to do both missions. It's not hard to see the problems that countries with one carrier have. National pride and mostly operationally irrelevant.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 28 Dec 2018, 06:42

Thank goodness your opinion is just that. As far as I'm concerned my attempt is to find out what it will take to have ANY F-35Bs onboard our LHDs given the very negative responses without much supporting detail except 'opinions'. I'm patient.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 28 Dec 2018, 07:00

Back to 101. 122 aircraft carriers out of 151 CV built in the US during ww2 were escort carriers. Thats not counting CVE built by the British empire plus the CAM ships. Since ww2, there have been little operational need for escort carriers because the threat was not significant until the cold war when the concept of sea control ships came up. In the US, the existing LHDs already inducted this concept by having VTOL/STOVL fighters onboard.

It was only in '82 that the UK re-demonstrated the utility of the light carrier concept but 36 years on, clearly all those lessons have passed a generation.

Whilst not used, it doesn't mean the conops is irrelevant. if one recognises the threat, one can understand its utility. That's why Japan has decided to adopt it. That's why Italy and Spain kept the capability. That's why Korea is looking at it. That's also why a segment of Australians have pushed for it.

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 28 Dec 2018, 16:13

optimist wrote:I don't know why it's so hard to accept that ADF will not buy a f-35b to put on the 2 existing 2 LHDs.

Please don't get me wrong but while I agree with many of your posts in this forum, I must disagree with you on this point.
Anyway, I believe it is clear that the reason "why it's so hard to accept that ADF will not buy a f-35b to put on the 2 existing 2 LHDs" is the following:
- Resources, or to be more precise the lack of it (resources) which makes the option of putting the "F-35Bs on the current two LHDs" the only possible option for Australia if it wants to pursue something akin to a "fixed-wing carrier capability".

IMO, I would say that I don't know why it's so hard to accept that Australia won't have necessary resources (includes money for acquisition and maintenance of the equipment, human resources to man and maintain the equipment, etc...) and I already posted the reason why I believe in this, so I won't repeat myself again in this regard.

Again, I would say that the only possibility for the Australians to have something that resembles a carrier or carrier capability would be exactly to buy F-35Bs and put them on the two (2) existing LHDs (so my opinion is exactly the opposite of yours in this regard) since it would be the option that requires less resources and this not only in terms of money (to adquire, modify and maintain equipment) but also and above all it's the option that requires by far less human resources - note that the Australian Navy is already having a hard time to crew/man its existing ships/fleet let alone to man an extra carrier or even worse, a couple of extra carriers.

You could argue that Australia would prefer not having a carrier capability at all than adapting its current LHDs to operate with F-35Bs and you could probably be right.
However the probability of Australia buying an extra carrier, let alone two extra carriers are much, much lower than the previous two options (equipping the 2 current LHDs with F-35Bs or not having F-35Bs at all).
I would speculate that:
- Probability for Australia not buying any F-35Bs and thus continuing to have no carrier capability whatsoever -> 69% (not so sexy option, I admit :mrgreen:

)
- Probability for Australia buying the F-35B and adapting the current 2 Canberra-class LHD to operate the F-35B -> 25%
- Probability for Australia buying the F-35B and buying a "3rd ship/carrier" to operate the F-35B -> 5%
- Probability for Australia buying the F-35B and buying two (2) carriers to operate the F-35B -> 1%

But again this is only my speculation and my 2 cents, of course... :wink:

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 28 Dec 2018, 20:14

'ricnunes' said: "...note that the Australian Navy is already having a hard time to crew/man its existing ships/ fleet...". Do you have a recent article claiming this 'fact'? Thanks.

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 28 Dec 2018, 23:35

To be honest with you, my reference was a post by weasel1962 on page 6 which I'll partially re-quote below:

weasel1962 wrote:On the resource limitation, its not just monetary. RAN had issues crewing the 55 crew collins sub. Introducing a 680 crew PoW isn't exactly going to make things easier.

I imagine that weasel1962 should have a good source for such a specific issue.
Personally I find it very believable because this is an issue which seems to be affecting a big number, if not the majority of first-world, developed and "western" countries on the world today and as such this is certainly not exclusive to Australia for that matter.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 29 Dec 2018, 00:20

Without checking 'the facts' that 'crewing the Collins Subs Problem' was some years ago when the mining boom in WA was going well. That boom has gone with measures to retain sub crews (in WA) now going well with bonuses and NO BOOM!

southernphantom · by **southernphantom** » 29 Dec 2018, 01:19

spazsinbad wrote:Without checking 'the facts' that 'crewing the Collins Subs Problem' was some years ago when the mining boom in WA was going well. That boom has gone with measures to retain sub crews (in WA) now going well with bonuses and NO BOOM!

I can confirm that mining is very much a boom/bust business. There may also be some overlap between individuals with a suitable temperament to crew a sub, and those with a suitable temperament to work entirely underground. There are similarities between the two.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 29 Dec 2018, 09:04

A recent 20 Jun 2018 ADF recruitment story & I'm aware there are lies, damn lies and statistics: https://www.afr.com/news/special-report ... 619-h11lad

optimist · by **optimist** » 29 Dec 2018, 10:35

ricnunes wrote:
optimist wrote:I don't know why it's so hard to accept that ADF will not buy a f-35b to put on the 2 existing 2 LHDs.

Please don't get me wrong but while I agree with many of your posts in this forum, I must disagree with you on this point.
Anyway, I believe it is clear that the reason "why it's so hard to accept that ADF will not buy a f-35b to put on the 2 existing 2 LHDs" is the following:
- Resources, or to be more precise the lack of it (resources) which makes the option of putting the "F-35Bs on the current two LHDs" the only possible option for Australia if it wants to pursue something akin to a "fixed-wing carrier capability".

IMO, I would say that I don't know why it's so hard to accept that Australia won't have necessary resources (includes money for acquisition and maintenance of the equipment, human resources to man and maintain the equipment, etc...) and I already posted the reason why I believe in this, so I won't repeat myself again in this regard.

Again, I would say that the only possibility for the Australians to have something that resembles a carrier or carrier capability would be exactly to buy F-35Bs and put them on the two (2) existing LHDs (so my opinion is exactly the opposite of yours in this regard) since it would be the option that requires less resources and this not only in terms of money (to adquire, modify and maintain equipment) but also and above all it's the option that requires by far less human resources - note that the Australian Navy is already having a hard time to crew/man its existing ships/fleet let alone to man an extra carrier or even worse, a couple of extra carriers.

You could argue that Australia would prefer not having a carrier capability at all than adapting its current LHDs to operate with F-35Bs and you could probably be right.
However the probability of Australia buying an extra carrier, let alone two extra carriers are much, much lower than the previous two options (equipping the 2 current LHDs with F-35Bs or not having F-35Bs at all).
I would speculate that:
- Probability for Australia not buying any F-35Bs and thus continuing to have no carrier capability whatsoever -> 69% (not so sexy option, I admit )
- Probability for Australia buying the F-35B and adapting the current 2 Canberra-class LHD to operate the F-35B -> 25%
- Probability for Australia buying the F-35B and buying a "3rd ship/carrier" to operate the F-35B -> 5%
- Probability for Australia buying the F-35B and buying two (2) carriers to operate the F-35B -> 1%

But again this is only my speculation and my 2 cents, of course...

The ADF were offered f-35b from a former PM. They only had to say yes. They said no and the matter hasn't been revisited by ADF or the politicians.
I would say if anything were to happen. There was more of a chance of another flat top or two, than putting f-35b on the existing ships. There is the remote possibility of a few V-22, or its replacement getting a spot as a strike asset. Though again I doubt this will happen either. At this point i would guess if needed, there would probably be a joint USMC action using theirs

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 29 Dec 2018, 10:51

NOW you are writing a revisionist history: "...The ADF were offered f-35b from a former PM...." Tony Abbott did no such thing - how can a PM 'offer' F-35Bs? A good summary of what was said/asked by PM with other references if required:

White Paper to consider F-35Bs for LHDs – report
23 May 2014 australianaviation.com.au

“Prime Minister Tony Abbott has instructed the authors of the new Defence White Paper currently in preparation to consider the acquisition of the STOVL F-35B variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to operate from the Navy’s forthcoming LHD amphibious ships. “It is understood Mr Abbott has instructed planners working on his defence white paper to examine the possibility of putting a squadron of 12 of the short takeoff and vertical landing version of the JSFs — the F-35B — on to the ships,” a report in The Australian newspaper on Friday says...."

Source: http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/0 ... ds-report/