F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft carrier

Variants for different customers or mission profiles
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22654
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post23 Dec 2018, 07:43

AUSTRALIAN MARITIME OPERATIONS [real page 184 of 265 or numbered 175]
19 Sep 2017 RAN

"...Embarked Helicopters
The MRH-90 maritime support helicopter is designed to operate from ships and may be quickly prepared for flying and stowage. However, it lacks the automatically folding rotor blades which are standard features of modern maritime helicopters thus retaining a degree of personnel risk and reduced flexibility in complex flight-deck management. The Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopter was not designed for maritime operations, but its smaller size makes deck management more achievable.

The Chinook heavy lift helicopter is able to lift artillery and manage the larger troop and medical lift requirements. The Chinook may be stowed in the hangar but this requires removal of rotor blades which is a difficult activity at sea. As such the Chinook is normally stowed on deck except for deep maintenance activities. [Hope the corrosion protection is good]

[quote from e-mail]"...Takes 4-5 hours to remove/fit Chook blades, at anchor in sea state zero.... Only marinised MRH/NH-90 in service anywhere are the ISR/ASW birds in Royal Norwegian Navy, which were a mere 11 years late... ARMY wanted a marinised 'Mike' variant Blackhawk..."


AFLOAT SUPPORT FORCE
The Afloat Support Force enables the Fleet to operate with more flexibility and at greater range from their operating ports, by increasing time at sea and reducing dependence on port visits to obtain the necessary logistic support.... [MUCH MORE AT THE JUMP]

Source: http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/fi ... s_2017.pdf (25Mb)
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 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22654
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post23 Dec 2018, 08:19

Attachments
SpanithHarriersJCIunder.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1042
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post24 Dec 2018, 15:34

steve2267 wrote:Does the RAN still have issues with un-marinized helos operating off the Canberra’s? Also, what about helos with manual-folding rotor blades and Chinooks that cannot fit into the Canberra hangar spaces? If so, then thay would seem to contradict conan’s assertion that Australia buys “capability” and would seem to be a bigger issue than F-35B’s — after all, if the RAN (or ADF) cannot afford a proper amphibious helo force, what’s the point of Killer Bees onboard the ships?


Depends on your definition of ‘issue’. Moving aircraft around a ship at sea always presents ‘issues’ it is how they are managed that is the question. Are our helicopters (MH-60R aside) ‘properly’ marinised at present? No, but such ‘issues’ can be managed with improved wash procedures and servicing, there is simply a logistical and financial cost in doing so. Corrosion is increased and effective lifespan of the platforms is shortened. The Chinook fits into the hangar space without issue as far as I am aware, however requires the removal of it’s blades to do so. That is a capability choice.

These issues do not contradict my earlier assertion that we buy capability, rather than the ‘few’ platforms referred to by others. ADF acquires capability at a level directed by Government. I never said that we acquire the absolute best capability in every category, rather the capability we do buy is fully funded and always to a very high degree. The LHD’s being the 2 biggest ships RAN has ever had is further evidence of this. The fact we aren’t flying squadrons worth of fully marinised aircraft off the LHD’s to cover all likely roles, should give a relative idea of the likelihood of dedicated fixed wing aircraft flying off them...

My issue is with the implication we buy a ‘few’ of something as if the numbers of any particular platform is relevant to our decision making, is that it suggests we purchase only these ‘few’ platforms, rather than a level of overall capability. There will never be any F-35B’s in ADF service without appropriate ship modification, training and support assets, munitions, fuel and spares inventories and people to fly, instruct and maintain them. That is what I mean by ‘capability’. It is not always the case with countries that buy a ‘few’ platforms...

Indonesia as a typical example buys a ‘few’. It’s recent purchase of 11x SU-35’s comes with ZERO weapons, targetting pods, spares and so on as a relevant example. They openly state they hope to purchase such things at future dates when economic circumstances allow. The TNI-AU face severe budgetary issues and accordingly have little choice. So they invest in a few platforms.

We don’t. We buy the number of platforms AND all the required support, training and maintenance assets we need to provide a directed level of capability. Does this make us special as someone asked? Somewhat. We fund and do what we say we’re going to. Not everyone does. But we aren’t at the present time funding pie in the sky capability wishes...
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1042
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post24 Dec 2018, 15:52

Only $4b eh, Spaz? 24x F-35B’s, a new AWD, a new fleet of Tomahawk cruise missiles and modifications to the LHD’s, for a mere $4b? No wonder you think it so likely...

I’m on-board, skip! Sign me up!

But please don’t look at the real cost of anything, ala 24x Super Hornets at $6.6b, the existing AWD’s at $3b each, etc...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22654
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Dec 2018, 17:14

Hang on, you 'Conan' quote big numbers without any qualification, whereas I'm getting numbers from sources - credible or not. You like to be sarcastic and I like to give as much detail as possible giving the sources of such detail. How about you?

https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/g/files/n ... No%205.pdf (3.21Mb) Then from:
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Roo ... C_2011.pdf [not there now] with: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6036923907
page four this thread Conan said: "...Is it really that ridiculous when the capability to operate 24x Super Hornets cost us $6.6b in 2007? …" viewtopic.php?f=61&t=54736&p=407457&hilit=operate#p407457
Attachments
Budgets and costs of Super Hornet acquisition ANAO 2012-13 col16.gif
OzSuperHornetFMSquote2011col16.gif
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 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22654
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post25 Dec 2018, 08:30

'ricnunes' said on page 6 this thread: "...maybe Santa and the Reindeers could bring one for Christmas :mrgreen: " SANTA missed the boat - wrong call - high all the way (space shuttle glideslope) - BOLTER BOLTER BOLTER & BACON & vixen.... :roll: :devil:

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=54736&p=407553&hilit=Santa#p407553
Attachments
SantaCallTheBallOKedPDF.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Online
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1907
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post25 Dec 2018, 19:13

Too high for lineup!
Wave off - wave off!

LOL :mrgreen:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2467
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post25 Dec 2018, 21:06

ric, 'lineup' is right/left vice high/low. However, as both you and spaz suggest, he's very high -- as in 'too high for a safe approach' and the likely recipient of an early WO (depending on his history around the ship).

Historically, high starts make LSOs a little twitchy. When combined with the performance of previous generation aircraft (i.e. pre-Hornet) they were often the entryway to an OC LOIM-AR taxi one-wire (overcorrect low in the middle to at the ramp, barely missed the round-down; i.e. an unsafe approach). In some tragic instances, a ramp strike instead of the one-wire.

Precision modes in SH and 'C' will -- all but (an important qualifier) -- eliminate such things.
Online
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1907
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post25 Dec 2018, 21:47

Roger that quicksilver, I stand corrected :wink:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22654
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post25 Dec 2018, 22:10

One very dark and not stormy but windy night during my second ever night carrier approach in an A4G (first one was roller/hook up and 'high all the way') with hook up again started high (off a CCA Carrier Controlled Approach) to.....

High All The Way Rampstrike Animation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJIrbR1JdB4

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 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22654
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 07:09

Meatball LineUp & Optimum AoA/ Airspeed USN Training 1960-70s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohqH1k6MjTo

RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1042
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 14:03

spazsinbad wrote:Hang on, you 'Conan' quote big numbers without any qualification, whereas I'm getting numbers from sources - credible or not. You like to be sarcastic and I like to give as much detail as possible giving the sources of such detail. How about you?

https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/g/files/n ... No%205.pdf (3.21Mb) Then from:
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Roo ... C_2011.pdf [not there now] with: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6036923907
page four this thread Conan said: "...Is it really that ridiculous when the capability to operate 24x Super Hornets cost us $6.6b in 2007? …" viewtopic.php?f=61&t=54736&p=407457&hilit=operate#p407457


You quote ‘The Australian’ and then want to argue you use ‘credible’ sources? Lol.

Want a credible source on my $6.6b that isn’t ‘The Australian’? Fine.

http://www.defence.gov.au/AnnualReports ... _v2_s2.pdf

Check under new projects... You’ve fallen into the trap that most do. Acquisition cost is usually but a small part of capability. Sustainment costs more...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22654
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 21:16

At last we have details of your numbers, still more to come [LHD?] - but 'over thirteen years' by gee by golly who'da thunk?
Defence Annual Report 2006-07 Volume 2 - Defence Materiel Organisation Section Two Report on Performance
01 Nov 2007 DMO

"...Bridging Air Combat Capability AIR 5349 Phase 1
– 54.9 This project provides for the establishment of a bridging air combat strike capability. Twenty‑four Boeing F/A‑18F Block II Super Hornet aircraft will be acquired to give the ADF a bridging air combat capability...." page numbered 53 or physical page 36 of 76
&
AIR 5349 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet
The F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet has been accepted as an accelerated acquisition project. Table 3.32 provides details of project expenditure.
Table 3.32—Project expenditure: AIR 5349
Approved project expenditure ($m) 3,984
Cumulative expenditure to 30 June 2007 ($m) 54.9
2006–07 actual expenditure ($m) 54.9

The project will acquire 24 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet [ http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/lsp/fa18F ... hornet.cfm
{computer says NO} ] multi-role aircraft to ensure that Australia’s air combat capability edge is maintained through the transition to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter during the coming decade. Second pass approval was achieved in March 2007. Defence has established an FMS contract with the US Navy, valued at approximately A$2.9b, for the acquisition of 24 US Navy common F/A-18F Block II Super Hornets and associated support systems. Additional cases will be established in 2007–08 for weapons acquisition and sustainment of the aircraft. Local industry involvement will be a key factor in developing the through-life support concepts for the Super Hornets. The total program investment is approximately $6.6b over 13 years, which includes acquisition and all support costs, as well as personnel...." page numbered 62 or physical page 45 of 76

Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/AnnualReports ... _v2_s2.pdf (6.4Mb)
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3114
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post27 Dec 2018, 16:57

This is more great news for LM. Japan ordering 100 more, the Aussie's contemplating additional F-35B's. Israel and the US successfully using them in combat... The F-35 really is maturing fast, and all signs point to additional as the glowing reports continue to come in.

I'm not sure Australia needs an aircraft carrier, but the fact she's contemplating one speaks volumes. One thing is for sure: If it comes to pass, they'll do it the right way. Nice to know we have an ally as strong as Australia, particularly in that part of the world...
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post27 Dec 2018, 23:47

spazsinbad wrote:At last we have details of your numbers, still more to come [LHD?] - but 'over thirteen years' by gee by golly who'da thunk?

The only reason the cost was given in 13 years is because that was the expected life of the aircraft. Aussies do generally cost an all up price.
Aussie fanboy
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests