F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft carrier

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

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 987
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post29 Dec 2018, 12:23

Nothing revisionist about it. They were offered and declined. More to the point, Abbot was amped up on getting them, he thought it was a brilliant idea. He was doused with a bucket of cold water to settle him down.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1043
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post29 Dec 2018, 12:36

spazsinbad wrote: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.


The Super Hornets were different as they were a bridging capability acquisition, not a permanent capability so things were done differently. All sustainment contracts are announced publicly for all of those capabilities you named so you can work such things out if feel the need, but the Supers were initially only intended from 2007 to 2020 so the whole shebang, down to the cost of the fuel they would use was announced.

There would be no difference with an F-35B capability, except I would argue that though the plane may not be much more expensive, the ‘capability’ would be. We wouldn’t get away with a squadron plus capability (the mythical 28 aircraft figure) of F-35B for less than $6.6B and any thought we would is pointless wish-making.
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1043
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post29 Dec 2018, 12:39

spazsinbad wrote: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.


And where do you think that ‘detail’ will come from, except from the ADF?

(Except in reality it won’t because there is NO push to get a ‘carrier’ capability in-service, even from within Defence so no work will be done on what it would actually take).
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1043
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post29 Dec 2018, 12:50

optimist wrote: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


There is an infinitely greater chance of V-22 happening for Australia. For starters we at least have a fully funded special forces support and aerial combat search and rescue capability project that is included within the DWP 2016, IIP...
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 987
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post29 Dec 2018, 14:35

Conan wrote:
optimist wrote: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


There is an infinitely greater chance of V-22 happening for Australia. For starters we at least have a fully funded special forces support and aerial combat search and rescue capability project that is included within the DWP 2016, IIP...

There is an infinite grater chance. Alas in the big picture, I see it as a small one. There is a current $3B tender for a special ops chopper
Aussie fanboy
Offline

aussiebloke

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 71
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 22:29

Unread post29 Dec 2018, 14:50

optimist wrote: There is a current $3B tender for a special ops chopper


An RFI has just gone out:
"The helicopters are to be proven (already in service) Commercial or Military off the shelf, optimised for operating in dense urban environments, and capable of being rapidly deployed by air transport in ADF Boeing C-17A Globemaster III aircraft. The helicopter should be capable of being fitted with simple, proven, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) equipment and weapons systems.
The project is currently in an exploratory phase, collecting information and proposals to inform concepts for capability realisation. The project is considering a wide range of procurement options based around a light helicopter as the major system."
https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=publi ... CB64522CFD
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2165
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post29 Dec 2018, 15:05

optimist wrote: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.


Thanks for the information (and I also thank spaz for the supporting article).

However note that such "no decisions" can and are sometimes reverted (but not often I admit). A very well known (worldwide) example of this was the B-1 Bomber program in the USA.

Moreover, the reason for the "no" (to Australian F-35Bs operating from its LHDs) may not have anything to do with the ability or not for the F-35B to operate from the Australian LHDs (because they can period.) or that operating F-35Bs from the same Australian LHDs will reduce any amphibious capability (Spain uses this capability on its sole ship and Australia even has two of these ships). IMO, this is simply due to the fact that the ADF simply doesn't see or has the need to operate a "F-35B carrier" (whatever this option might end up being) and prefers to spend money on something else (on other systems).

Now, IF the ADF "suddenly" decides to have a "F-35B carrier capability" then several options will be presented at the table including the return of the "F-35Bs operating from the two current LHDs" option but then again, this is a big IF.


optimist wrote:
Conan wrote:There is an infinitely greater chance of V-22 happening for Australia. For starters we at least have a fully funded special forces support and aerial combat search and rescue capability project that is included within the DWP 2016, IIP...

There is an infinite grater chance. Alas in the big picture, I see it as a small one. There is a current $3B tender for a special ops chopper


Here I agree with you optimist. The probability of Australia getting the V-22 will be very, very small.
On top of that $3B tender for a spec ops helicopter which is for a small helicopter - see aussiebloke post plus the link that I'll share below - there's also an ongoing program to replace the current Tiger gunship helicopter fleet, isn't it?

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/20 ... licopters/
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

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 987
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post29 Dec 2018, 15:56

We aren't doing a MLU and are scrapping them. We didn't get the apache that we wanted because it was a full import without any benefit. Where as the EU had a local assembly etc. What will be funny is if we get the apache this time.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1043
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post30 Dec 2018, 06:10

optimist wrote:
Conan wrote:
optimist wrote: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


There is an infinitely greater chance of V-22 happening for Australia. For starters we at least have a fully funded special forces support and aerial combat search and rescue capability project that is included within the DWP 2016, IIP...

There is an infinite grater chance. Alas in the big picture, I see it as a small one. There is a current $3B tender for a special ops chopper


The Long Ranged CSAR project has nothing to do with the deployable Special Forces helicopter capability, other than they will both be aviation based assets and will work closely with SOCOMD-Aust / RAAF 4 Sqn STS.

CSAR will be V-22 or Extended Range CH-47F + MC/C-130J based.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1727
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post30 Dec 2018, 08:35

I think current CSAR capabilities are just leveraging on existing assets, not dedicated. If so, then the justification for V-22s would be dependent on other functions rather than CSAR.

Am given to understand specops helo has to be C-17 deployable.
Offline

aussiebloke

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 71
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 22:29

Unread post30 Dec 2018, 13:04

Conan wrote:There is an infinitely greater chance of V-22 happening for Australia. For starters we at least have a fully funded special forces support and aerial combat search and rescue capability project that is included within the DWP 2016, IIP...


There is no such "fully funded" project. The 2016 Integrated Investment Program report that accompanied the Defence White Paper merely states in an introductory Overview section :

30 The Canberra Class amphibious ships can also provide substantial support for sea lift as a secondary role.

31 Enhancements in this capability stream to support the future force include:
...........
...........
considering a future long-range aero-medical evacuation and combat search and rescue capability 9see page 17)

Further on in the detailed section of the report (page 67) a similar statement appears:
In the longer-term, consideration will be given to acquiring a long-range, aero-medical evacuation and combat search and rescue capability.

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/do ... ec50a75%22
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1043
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post30 Dec 2018, 13:48

It’s budgeted for and covered in the forward estimates, so describe it however you like. Until and unless it’s cancelled it’s funded..
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2165
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post30 Dec 2018, 16:21

optimist wrote:We aren't doing a MLU and are scrapping them. We didn't get the apache that we wanted because it was a full import without any benefit. Where as the EU had a local assembly etc. What will be funny is if we get the apache this time.


I'll probably would call it "ironic" instead of "funny" but then again, this would be playing with semantics :mrgreen:

Anyway, what's important is that in the end you get the best capability which the Apache certainly seems to be, all of this despite of what was already expended (wasted is the proper word here) with that flopped Tiger helicopter program.
At least someone between or within the Australian Defense Forces, Defense Department or Government was capable of admitting a wrong decision and make it right, this in case the Apache ends up being selected.

This would be quite different from Canada with for example its Maritime Helicopter Project (to replace the old Sea King Helicopters) in which a replacement (EH-101) was selected in the early 1990's but was cancelled just afterwards (this when the Sea Kings were already OLD) only to be restarted in the early 2000's where one of the two finalists was exactly the same EH-101 that was rejected a decade earlier. But since who made the decision to finally purchase the Sea King replacement (in the early 2000's) was the government of the same party (Liberals) who cancelled this project in the early 1990's, this same government instead of acknowledging that it screwed up and selected the best choice which was again the EH-101, it decided to purchase the S-92 - which wasn't a Maritime/ASW helicopter as opposed to the EH-101 - which forced Canada to finance the development of what basically is a completely new variant of the S-92 helicopter (which again didn't exist) and which even today still doesn't have most of its intended capabilities (namely in terms of ASW), but here I'm digressing... :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

aussiebloke

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 71
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 22:29

Unread post30 Dec 2018, 18:42

Conan wrote:It’s budgeted for and covered in the forward estimates, so describe it however you like. Until and unless it’s cancelled it’s funded..


Fully costed would be a more accurate description of this proposed purchase of longe-range combat search and rescue aircraft. Saying "it's budgeted for" might suggest to some that there are funds actually set aside in the Australian Government's Defence Department Budget - which there aren't.

The timeline according to the White Paper's Integrated Investment Program is 2023-2032 and the "approximate investment value" is $2-$3 billion.

If the Government keeps to its intention to spend 2% of GDP on defence and if there isn't a change of government with different defence and/or budget priorities and if this proposal does finally get Government approval then it will happen. To imply that this purchase is somehow locked in is misleading.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23308
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post30 Dec 2018, 20:02

Aaahh 'ric' 'ric' 'ric' you will NOT be amused by this very SAD & SORRY SAGA of RECENT TYMES - RAN SEASPRITE DEBACLE:

https://www.faaaa.asn.au/kaman-sh2ga-super-seasprite/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests