F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft carrier

[Conan]

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

Source: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/shoul ... 35-to-sea/

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.

Just a slight correction, sorry.

Australia has committed to 72x F-35A’s. There is indicative planning for up to 28 more to achieve the ‘magical number’ of 100 fighters, but no decision has been made as yet and with Super Hornet upgrades on the horizon and RAAF having more than enough work to do to fully introduce it’s existing 72 fighters and all related elements into service and then reach IOC and FOC, there is plenty of time before any further decisions have to be made.

RAAF ‘may’ get 100x F-35A fighters. Or it ‘will’ get 72x F-35A fighters and ‘may’ get up to 28x ‘something else’. Only time will tell at this point.

[Conan]

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.....

Why? That assumes a fait accompli the ADF is even interested in the -B. Which to date it has steadfastly NOT been interested in it...

[optimist]

Just a slight correction, sorry.

Australia has committed to 72x F-35A’s. There is indicative planning for up to 28 more to achieve the ‘magical number’ of 100 fighters, but no decision has been made as yet and with Super Hornet upgrades on the horizon and RAAF having more than enough work to do to fully introduce it’s existing 72 fighters and all related elements into service and then reach IOC and FOC, there is plenty of time before any further decisions have to be made.

RAAF ‘may’ get 100x F-35A fighters. Or it ‘will’ get 72x F-35A fighters and ‘may’ get up to 28x ‘something else’. Only time will tell at this point.

The last I read, was the fa-18f is being looked at for 2025 and a decision in 2022, That timeline may have slid to the right.
We are keeping the growlers and my add to the EA through UAV. I don't think we will keep the fa-18f operational, but may keep the 12 converted as spares.we may even keep the 24 as spares for the growler. If it's not considered too much. The resale back to USN wouldn't be much.

[spazsinbad]

Why would not a resale back to USN be much? How much is much? We sold some clapped out Hornets to Canada for not much.

Several quotes from an RAAF AM have stated the Shornets will be gone once the F-35A has a suitable anti-ship weapon.

"[AM Brown (rtd)]...“When we have an effective maritime strike weapon onboard the F-35, we will look to retire our Super Hornets, with the exception of the Growler. Flying the Super Hornet has prepared us for F-35 in some key ways, notably in terms of the security requirements necessary to manage data generated by the aircraft.”..." viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=407669&hilit=retire#p407669

Meanwhile a repeat of an OLD ASPI map gives some idea of 'combat radius' to a target known to be where it is then:

https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/ta ... cision.pdf (nogo)

[Corsair1963]

Why? That assumes a fait accompli the ADF is even interested in the -B. Which to date it has steadfastly NOT been interested in it...

ABSURD....

[weasel1962]

Just a slight correction, sorry.

Australia has committed to 72x F-35A’s. There is indicative planning for up to 28 more to achieve the ‘magical number’ of 100 fighters, but no decision has been made as yet and with Super Hornet upgrades on the horizon and RAAF having more than enough work to do to fully introduce it’s existing 72 fighters and all related elements into service and then reach IOC and FOC, there is plenty of time before any further decisions have to be made.

RAAF ‘may’ get 100x F-35A fighters. Or it ‘will’ get 72x F-35A fighters and ‘may’ get up to 28x ‘something else’. Only time will tell at this point.

100 F-35A is a commitment as reflected by the Australian Government in the original MOU agreement with all JSF partners (see page 89/90 of the link below). This affects the contribution share and offsets. That's also why LM indicates the same in all the fast facts LM issues. This MOU can be amended but Australia has not made any amendment to date i.e. the commitment remains.
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/102378.pdf

This was formalised in parliament in 2009 per pdf below.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament ... ikeFighter

and reflected in the milestones.
http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/Multimed ... 9-9297.pdf

What has happened to date is that the Government has approved the buys relating to the initial phase of 72 As. However, the commitment remains as 100 F-35As until the day the Australian Government amends the original agreement (which has not happened yet).

[Corsair1963]

Well, said and supported....

[spazsinbad]

Given the information kindly provided by THE WEASEL we can see how Canada has MOU amended to all the eights 88 then.

https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... c_2018.pdf (1Mb)

[optimist]

Why would not a resale back to USN be much? How much is much? We sold some clapped out Hornets to Canada for not much.

I said not much. A wild guess would be $10-15m ea. Is there an example of 15 year old jets being sold back to a sole user, as an example?
USN would take them for flight-line and not as spares. As they haven't had the carrier landing forces to use up the G numbers. They should have useful hours left. A decision on what we want to keep as a possible support for the growlers, would come first

[spazsinbad]

Why would not a resale back to USN be much? How much is much? We sold some clapped out Hornets to Canada for not much.

I said not much. A wild guess would be $10-15m ea. Is there an example of 15 year old jets being sold back to a sole user, as an example?
USN would take them for flight-line and not as spares. As they haven't had the carrier landing forces to use up the G numbers. They should have useful hours left. A decision on what we want to keep as a possible support for the growlers, would come first

This is your guesswork I presume? OR do you have links to make such predictions? Whatever. My point is that (at moment) the intention is that 'they begone' when no longer needed. How that happens is probably irrelevant. Roll on BeesKnees….

[weasel1962]

How the accountants value an asset sale is thru book value. The asset's cost is depreciated over time by the useful life of the asset. The cost minus the depreciation would be the net book value. Sales are normally at NBV with any cost recovered with a slight profit margin. I think this is how EDA does it for EDA transfers.

In layman's terms, if one assumes the airframe life is 25 years. Then a sale at the 12th year would mean the NBV is ~12/25 the original cost. On the 24th year, the asset would thus be 1/25 the original cost. The RAAF would have added freight and maintenance costs. That would explain why the RAAF hornets probably don't cost much because the Hornet are probably fully depreciated.

[spazsinbad]

I don't think I needed an accounting lesson but that was interesting nevertheless. My point remains: TAHDAH! Shornets!

[ricnunes]

:shock: I'm not a WALLABY - I'm a WANNABE!

Look at the bright side, you could have been confused for a WOMBAT

[spazsinbad]

:shock: I'm not a WALLABY - I'm a WANNABE!

Look at the bright side, you could have been confused for a WOMBAT

Eats Roots Shoots & Leaves....

[ricnunes]

LoL