F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft carrier

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23089
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Dec 2018, 05:15

Last A4G Skyhawk cruise with HMAS Melbourne & VF-805 ended abruptly for them in the Indian Ocean on 20th Oct 1980 when the 'last' A4G catapult went bad - the aircraft was lost off the catapult whilst the pilot ejected to be recovered OK.

Subsequently no more A4G embarked ops were carried out although some touch and goes were done to keep A4G skills. The last cruise in 1981 had only the ASW contingent of S-2E/Gs and Sea Kings with Wessex plane guard. And that was that.

CV skills are not there for most after some 37-38 years although some A4G pilots went to the SHAR in UK to gain STOVL experience aboard their CVSs with Sea Harrier (SHAR). I don't know when the last ex-A4G/SHAR pilot hung up his boots.

However some well experienced aforementioned STOVL pilots ex-Oz have vigourously championed F-35Bs on an Oz ski jump. Those stories have appeared on other threads here. Search on BADDAMS or Mark Boast. There must be an 'Oz F-35B on Oz LHD' PDF or two floating about in this forum somewhere. What kind of CV do some people envisage? It will NOT be nuclear with steam being now outdated & requiring a lot more crew compared to a STOVL Ski Jumper. Also as we should know by now the VL is much easier (and yes so is an arrest with F-35C) with the F-35B. SRVL needs a BIG/Wide CVF DECK.
Last edited by spazsinbad on 11 Dec 2018, 05:18, edited 1 time in total.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5574
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post11 Dec 2018, 05:17

Amphibious Ships like LHA/LHD don't have the storage capacity in Fuel or Weapons as Aircraft Carriers of a similar size. So, they can't sustain or project power to the same level. Which, is not to say they couldn't be useful. Just not to the same degree as purpose built ships.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23089
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Dec 2018, 05:20

Whatever. I think the answer for small navies is the F-35B on a ski jump deck - what is underneath is up to the NAVY eh.

USA/France have [a] NUCLEAR CATOBAR carrier(s) today. Nuclear Power is out of the question for Australia - appetite NIL.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5574
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post11 Dec 2018, 06:32

Honestly, best solution for smaller navies. Would be something like an enlarged Chakri Naruebet (Sea Control Ship). Which, could operate the F-35B and possibly Ospreys.


htms-chakri-naruebet-aircraft-carrier--thailand.png
Offline
User avatar

pmi

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 107
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2011, 09:12

Unread post11 Dec 2018, 06:53

Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, best solution for smaller navies. Would be something like an enlarged Chakri Naruebet (Sea Control Ship).


Which was the Príncipe de Asturias.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1636
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post11 Dec 2018, 07:07

pmi wrote:Which was the Príncipe de Asturias.


...and now the Juan Carlos. 800 tons of aviation fuel vs 600 tons on some aircraft carriers.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23089
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Dec 2018, 08:06

I'm shocked here - use an 11,500 ton - 538 foot flight deck (albeit with ski jump) - to HAMPER F-35B ops from the getgo?!
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 980
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post11 Dec 2018, 09:03

spazsinbad wrote:The claim by the 'naysayers' is that it is too expensive to make the modifications whilst any benefit is not worth it and will take away the main purpose of the LHDs. These questions have been canvassed a lot in this forum in various threads with one at least LOCKED for some reason. Even the MODERATORS here don't like the idea. Reasons against idea are baffling.

"...JCI/LHD was designed to carry AV-8B Harriers..." NOPE she was designed to operate F-35Bs with whatever details were known at that time. YES the JCI operates Spanish Harriers but that is because they are what they have now - but future?


The naysayers are the RAN and RAAF CONOPS. An unthinking "why don't we" from the PM at the time, was met with a report dismissing it. As it was asked, the ADF had to give reasons why it was a stupid question. The 2 LHDs are committed, if the gov of the day wants a naval air wing. They are gong to have to buy more ships, not only the carriers. To allocate a lot more money to run the system, with the added support needed.

At most. there is talk of providing a lilly-pad for joint forces
Aussie fanboy
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5574
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post11 Dec 2018, 09:48

weasel1962 wrote:
pmi wrote:Which was the Príncipe de Asturias.


...and now the Juan Carlos. 800 tons of aviation fuel vs 600 tons on some aircraft carriers.



Funny, the Wasp Class LHD's carries 1,232 tons of JP-5 aviation fuel. Yet, it's not considered adequate in the Aircraft Carrier Role for sustained Air Operations.......
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 753
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post11 Dec 2018, 09:49

Aren't the numbers quoted for "aviation fuel" slightly misleading since the gas turbine, embarked aircraft and
(at least for the US) ground vehicles can, in principle, all eat JP-5?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5574
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post11 Dec 2018, 09:50

spazsinbad wrote:I'm shocked here - use an 11,500 ton - 538 foot flight deck (albeit with ski jump) - to HAMPER F-35B ops from the getgo?!



I said "something like an enlarged Chakri Naruebet (Sea Control Ship)".....i.e. similar in design but much bigger.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5574
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post11 Dec 2018, 09:54

marauder2048 wrote:Aren't the numbers quoted for "aviation fuel" slightly misleading since the gas turbine, embarked aircraft and
(at least for the US) ground vehicles can, in principle, all eat JP-5?



No, the 1,232 is strictly for aircraft. Another 50 tons is carried for vehicles.....
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1636
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post11 Dec 2018, 10:38

marauder2048 wrote:Aren't the numbers quoted for "aviation fuel" slightly misleading since the gas turbine, embarked aircraft and (at least for the US) ground vehicles can, in principle, all eat JP-5?


Agreed, but the point is, its irrelevant since as mentioned before, any 6 year old can suggest a flat deck. A 6 year old doesn't need to understand what a limited budget or operational requirement means. Even a CVN doesn't have enough fuel for the USN at some point in time...cue AOR.

The Canberras, being a Juan Carlos design, carries enough fuel and weapons for its intended role. That's why the RAN acquired 2. The Juan Carlos is able to perform a sea control role because it was designed for it. The Canberra has all the essential sea control elements of Juan Carlos minus the most important element: fixed wing fighter.

Arguing for another carrier for the RAN is like telling the USMC they need a ford class CVN and should stop wasting time on the phibs, Sure, in theory possible but in reality waste of bandwidth.
Last edited by weasel1962 on 11 Dec 2018, 10:45, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23089
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Dec 2018, 10:43

optimist wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:The claim by the 'naysayers' is that it is too expensive to make the modifications whilst any benefit is not worth it and will take away the main purpose of the LHDs. These questions have been canvassed a lot in this forum in various threads with one at least LOCKED for some reason. Even the MODERATORS here don't like the idea. Reasons against idea are baffling.

"...JCI/LHD was designed to carry AV-8B Harriers..." NOPE she was designed to operate F-35Bs with whatever details were known at that time. YES the JCI operates Spanish Harriers but that is because they are what they have now - but future?

The naysayers are the RAN and RAAF CONOPS. An unthinking "why don't we" from the PM at the time, was met with a report dismissing it. As it was asked, the ADF had to give reasons why it was a stupid question. The 2 LHDs are committed, if the gov of the day wants a naval air wing. They are gong to have to buy more ships, not only the carriers. To allocate a lot more money to run the system, with the added support needed. At most. there is talk of providing a lilly-pad for joint forces

Not only was there "an unthinking PM" but also the then DefMin. Not a bad duo for unthunk. There are no stupid questions - even if the CONOPS are stupid. So 'buy more ships'. I'm jiggy with it. "...At most. there is talk of providing a lilly-pad for joint forces." Nice of you to concede that but a 'lily-pad' will do (I well recall the Dennis theme song "Lillee Lillee Lillee".

So where is this "report dismissing it"? Have you seen it? Why has it not been made public - curious minds want to know.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1192
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post11 Dec 2018, 10:53

weasel1962 wrote:If its to locations beyond land-based CAP and where the threat of enemy airpower is significant, an F-35B equipped LHD provides more options as the USMC knows. Otherwise as Spaz points out, RAN can and will only send LHDs if treaty allies can provide the air cover i.e. they won't go in alone. Its actually consistent with RAN operational doctrine even from ww2 where the Aussie army will only send troops overseas on troop transports where battleship escorts were available.

Whether Australia is a great power or not, it has operated CV.


The other thing WWII showed us is we can't rely on 'Great Powers' to provide what they said, or rather, what we believed would be available, when it turns out they're busy elsewhere with their own wrangle, and we're back to not having the support we thought would be there, and having to get dirty and desperate. I think we'd benefit greatly from having two large LHDs as 'carriers' and two LHDs as amphibs, plus the Bay Class cherry on top, to have our own ability to do whatever we must. I think that's definitely worth the price, given the whims of present dynamics. I don't believe for a second we'll see the political confluence that would get us that though.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 4 guests