F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft carrier

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

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1795
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post30 Dec 2018, 23:56

spazsinbad wrote: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/


Yup, the Australian Seasprite "saga" (as you said) was another example of a cluster f*ck regarding military procurements.

But at least this one had a happy ending... for the Kiwis, that is :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

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post01 Jan 2019, 02:49

aussiebloke wrote:
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.


Absolutely funding is set aside in the budget. Not the 2018-19 budget obviously, but you don’t budget on a year by year basis...
Offline

aussiebloke

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 22:29

Unread post01 Jan 2019, 16:18

Conan wrote:
Absolutely funding is set aside in the budget. Not the 2018-19 budget obviously, but you don’t budget on a year by year basis...


The 2016 Australian Defence White Paper indicated that "$195 billion will be spent across the next decade to
fund investment in the future force". Projects that are approved and underway would certainly have "funding set aside". A project that has no approval and which is estimated to commence in five or more years, as is the case with the CSAR aircraft, has no funding "set aside" - as in real money sitting in a real Treasury or Defence Department account. No government works like that and yes most governments including the Australian Federal Government do budget on a year by year basis. See https://www.budget.gov.au/

Anything not specifically budgeted for in the latest annual budget is just an estimate. You can see this in the phrase you used in an earlier reply - "forward estimates" - in other word projected or anticipated expenditure and therefore estimated expenditure.

Suggested further reading: Funding and Delivering the 2016 Defence White Paper https://www.regionalsecurity.org.au/res ... homson.pdf
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1403
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post02 Jan 2019, 02:12

The RAAF 2017-2027 air force strategy is the product of that white paper. Its downloadable to see what is in and out.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22297
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Jan 2019, 18:10

Just for the 'heck of it' and 'why not' here is the FRIED MAN take on the cost estimate for the unwashed and unwanted Bs.
Japan upgrades naval self-defense
12 Jan 2019 Norman Friedman

"...The Australians dropped consideration of buying F-35Bs for their two Spanish-type large amphibious ships in 2015 after it was estimated that adapting the ships for F-35Bs would cost more than $4.4 billion – a rather high figure which may actually reflect lobbying against the idea by the Royal Australian Air Force...." :roll: [Oh the CRABS - wot a luverly bunch]

Source: https://navalinstitute.com.au/japan-upg ... f-defense/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2371
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post13 Jan 2019, 18:35

In the US, the resistance used similar arguments (ship mods too costly) after the “will seriously (and routinely) injure sailors and Marines, damage equipment, and melt the deck” narratives were proven false. Any number with a ‘B’ to the right of a dollar sign is intergallacticaly wrong and, as suggested above, likely the product of political spin by those in opposition.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 822
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post14 Jan 2019, 03:32

And the RAN disputed those numbers, because they want the f-35b of their 2 LHD? Perhaps not :roll:
Years before the 2014 hiccup of PM Abbott. There was an ADF statement that I saw on wiki, a 3rd ship would be needed to run the f-35b, if that was the wish. It didn't go into whether all 3 ships or it would be just a single ship. That could be googled if considered relevant. My guess is that it would have been all 3 ships, a single shift can be ineffective for the required days at sea.
The only reason their is a ski jump on ours. Is that it was going to cost too much money to remove it during the build.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22297
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 Jan 2019, 05:15

YOU can google your wiki info for what it is worth. Otherwise guess away - giving your opinions - for what they are worth.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1403
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post14 Jan 2019, 08:59

Sometimes credibility is determined by the numbers posted.

This was posted by ANAO on the budget for 2 Canberra LHDs.
https://www.anao.gov.au/file/26971/down ... n=9CVkDAH1

For a $4.4 billion to apply for "converting" the LHDs, that is really accounting presentation of which $4.39 billion could be to buy the F-35Bs required to fly from the LHDs. Factually correct, but clearly misleading.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22297
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 Jan 2019, 10:46

:applause: 'weasel1962' Thanks for the link - here is some info from it - all from physical page 2 & 3 of the PDF cited above.
ANAO Report No. 26 2017–18 - 2016–17 Major Projects Report
Project Number JP 2048 Phase 4A/4B - Project Name AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS (LHD)
22 Jan 2018 ANAO

"...A Request for Tender was released in April 2006 to the shipbuilders for the construction of the Australianised designs.... [page 2]
&
Uniqueness
While the LHDs are based on an existing Spanish LHD design, the Australianisation changes, the incorporation of an existing SAAB Combat System, and the development and integration of the internal and external communication systems will result in a unique vessel....

...A unique build strategy has been employed. The LHD hulls were built, including the majority of the fit-out, by Navantia at the Ferrol and Fene Shipyards in Spain. They were transported to Australia as individual lifts on a ‘float on/float off’ heavy lift ship, the Blue Marlin. Construction of the superstructure and its consolidation with the hull was conducted by BAE Systems Australia Defence (BAE Systems) at their Williamstown (Victoria) Shipyard in Australia. The superstructure contains the high level Combat and Communications Systems equipment that will be maintained and upgraded in Australia. BAE Systems also undertook the final out-fit, set-to-work, and trials...."
&
[page 3] "...Total Budget $3,091.9 million..."

Source: https://www.anao.gov.au/file/26971/down ... n=9CVkDAH1 (PDF 0.5Mb)
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: 22297
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post23 Jan 2019, 07:07

Davies seems to have mellowed somewhat in the light of the capabilities brought by F-35Bs at sea to the NETWORKS.... Plenty to read and only a few bits excerpted below so best read at source however MELBOURNE not converted to a casino. The 'report' quoted is NOT an official one so don't be fooled when speed reading said 'naysayer article report'.
Should Australia follow Japan and take the F-35 to sea?
23 Jan 2019 Malcolm Davis

"...Using the F-35B to enhance the warfighting potential of the LHD’s escorts is an interesting prospect that needs to be explored further. There’s significant potential for force multiplication if the F-35B is used in conjunction with platforms like the E-7A Wedgetail and unmanned aerial vehicles also based on the LHDs, to act as both intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets and networking nodes. Looking further ahead, an even more intriguing option would using the LHD to house unmanned combat aerial vehicles.

The strategic outlook now is far more dangerous than the 2016 defence white paper predicted, and that demands a rethink of Australia’s force structure...
&
...a third LHD with a wing of between 12 and 16 F-35Bs, supported by a larger feet of destroyers and frigates, is an option that should be on the agenda in any force structure debate...."

Source: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/shoul ... 35-to-sea/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5093
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post23 Jan 2019, 08:02

Once the Spanish Juan Carlos and Turkish Anadolu LPD's start operating their F-35B's. I am sure Australians will warm up to the idea...
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1795
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Jan 2019, 22:33

tailchase wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
spazsinbad wrote: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/


Yup, the Australian Seasprite "saga" (as you said) was another example of a cluster f*ck regarding military procurements.

But at least this one had a happy ending... for the Kiwis, that is :mrgreen:


Kiwis or Wallabies?


Kiwis = a term or "nickname" often used in Anglo-Saxon countries which represents New Zealanders or if you prefer the People of New Zealand.

It is akin to:
Aussies = Australians (Aussies I remember and not Wallabies, LOL)
Brits = British
Canucks = Canadians
Yankees = Americans (people from the United States of America or USA)

For example, I'm Canuck while spazsinbad is Aussie (or are you a Wallaby, spaz? :mrgreen: ) then there's lots of Yankees around here and those Seasprite's mentioned above are (now) Kiwis, capiche? :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

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1403
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post24 Jan 2019, 00:56

Just wanted to make a few points on the article posted by Spaz and the follow on article by defenceconnect.


https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/marit ... ft-carrier
"The introduction of these capabilities is incredibly costly, not only with the refit of ships themselves, you then have to include the cost of the aircraft, the crews, maintenance, sustainment and support and escort vessels," Davis said.


1. No vessel, not even the Gerald Ford CVNs carry enough fuel to generate carrier sorties continuously. That's what AORs are for and that's what RAN already has.

2. Conversion works can probably be done in Australia which would be a boon to local shipbuilding.

3. RAAF has already committed to 100 F-35As with its attendant crews and the LHDs are operating hence the maintenance and sustainment costs are already committed and the AAW DDGs are more than capable escort vessels. The carrier capability should be seen as an incremental cost and not a completely whole new cost which seems to be suggested.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5093
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post24 Jan 2019, 01:07

Honestly, we need to look beyond the F-35B's operating strictly from the Canberra Class. As their STOVL capabilities offer considerable flexibility and can be used from austere basing. They also could support Allied Aircraft Carriers and/or Amphibious Air Capable Ships (LHA/LHD) as needed.....
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests