F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft carrier

[spazsinbad]

Whereas the KANGAROOS are Rugby League: https://www.nrl.com/news/2018/10/02/updated-kangaroos-squad/

How much can a KOALA Bear? Austen Tayshus - Australiana (Official Uncensored Version) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StcXGhuliRk

[mixelflick]

This carrier AUS has, is it suitable for fixed wing aircraft?

Because if so, I'd think they'd be at least considering the C. I seem to remember it being on the smaller side though. likely a converted helicopter carrier. If that's so, then the B has to be the only candidate. Still, I'd love to see the C used by someone other than the USN/Marines. In another thread, someone floated the idea the French might be interested in the C. I can't see them swallowing their national pride though...

[Conan]

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).

‘Estimated production quantities’ is a commitment to you? Cool...

Then one wonders why the Australian Government wrote this in it’s most recent strategic acquisition plan...

Section 5.11: ‘The Super Hornet has been extended beyond it’s intial bridging capability timeframe and is now planned to be replaced by around 2030. It’s replacement could include either a fourth operational squadron of Joint Strike Fighters or possibly a yet to be developed unmanned combat aerial vehicle.’

The door is ajar, whether this forum cares for the idea or not.

http://www.defence.gov.au/WhitePaper/Do ... rogram.pdf

[Conan]

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....

In what way? The same way that 6 of the original 9 partner nations had no interest in the -B?

[spazsinbad]

This carrier AUS has, is it suitable for fixed wing aircraft?... In another thread, someone floated the idea the French might be interested in the C. I can't see them swallowing their national pride though...

A French F-35C aboard CdeG idea has been 'floated' & SUNK - the Brits had this notion when they were having F-35Cs to cross deck with the French - but that proven not possible. The graphic shows an Oz LHD with ski jump & old MELBOURNE.

[element1loop]

The 100 strikefighter 'limit' ideal is krud under the prevailing circumstances and trends, this isn't 2003 any longer. We need more squadrons, and a PCA at Amberley for speed and reach. Thankfully Reaper-Skyguard will support/supplement plus prep ADF for a more capable medium-range strike drone weapon-truck to follow. As for F-35B, Singapore can buy 50 and base them here. Sorted for reach and clout.

[Conan]

The 100 strikefighter 'limit' ideal is krud under the prevailing circumstances and trends, this isn't 2003 any longer. We need more squadrons, and a PCA at Amberley for speed and reach. Thankfully Reaper-Skyguard will support/supplement plus prep ADF for a more capable medium-range strike drone weapon-truck to follow. As for F-35B, Singapore can buy 50 and base them here. Sorted for reach and clout.

We sure do, and not to mention more regular battalions (at least one per State / Territory wouldn’t be too much to ask would it?) some long range fires (even if just for the regular force. Long range fires for the entire Army are clearly unattainable...) that have a hope of surviving if ANYONE in our entire region shoots back at them, more surface ships, subs, amphibs, a single supply ship for the entire navy available for operations at ALL times would be a luxury... Probably need a carrier in future, a genuine ground based air defence capability (what? A single battery of RBS-70’s isn’t up to facing the might of Chinese airpower?) a (was going to say ‘genuine’ but why bother pretending we have anything even close to a ‘non-genuine’ one now?) BMD capability, as we will be facing these threats whether we like to admit it or not.

At least one operational air to air refueller per RAAF squadron would be nice, some actual troops to defend the multitude of bases all these fighters of yours will operate from (what? 2 full time squadrons nee rifle companies and a single reserve squadron isn’t good enough to defend the double digit airbases we have just within Australia...) and the list goes on...

Funny, the pot of money for half this stuff, doesn’t seem to exist...

[element1loop]

Throw another lamb chop on the BBQ, she'll be right.

[spazsinbad]

Plan ‘B’ for the F-35
29 Jun 2019 Marcus Hellyer

"The Australian Defence Force’s equipment is good and getting better. But the ADF’s current and planned force structures have some significant limitations in their ability to deliver some crucial military effects. In an era of strategic uncertainty, both in the threats we will face and in the capacity of our allies to help us face them, it’s useful to think about ways to address those limitations sooner rather than later. As always, the perfect (particularly when delivered sometime off in the never-never) is the enemy of the good. Also, given the strategic uncertainty, a future government will need to increase defence spending, or at least realise that its current investment plan needs some serious reviewing.

So what are those limitations? First, we are acquiring the conventional ‘A’ variant of the best tactical aircraft in the world, the F-35 joint strike fighter. But its range is limited even with air-to-air refuelling, particularly if we want a sustained presence in an area, rather than one that involves flying out, launching munitions and flying home. Once a naval or amphibious taskforce is more than 1,000 nautical miles (1,852 kilometres) away from our air bases, it’s pretty much on its own. A thousand nautical miles isn’t very far in the Indo-Pacific, or even in our patch of it in the South Pacific....

...I’m well aware of the threats posed by Chinese anti-access capabilities, and I’m not suggesting that having F-35Bs will mean that the ADF can go up against the Chinese fleet alone in the South China Sea. [an addition to show the nonsense below this from Sam Roggeveen] But I can’t see how a maritime or amphibious taskforce that includes an LHD with an F-35B is somehow more vulnerable than one without it. And if it’s too dangerous to send an F-35B–equipped LHD to sea, then it’s certainly too dangerous to send an LHD without the F-35B but with over 1,000 troops on it to sea. Moreover, the F-35B, whether operating from land or from an LHD, gives a lot of capability in scenarios short of full-scale war against China....

... A third Spanish-built LHD and F-35B squadron could be delivered in around five years (even with the modifications that allow it to carry all of those munitions and aviation fuel), well before the navy’s new frigates and submarines arrive. Yes, the F-35B has a shorter range and a lower payload than the conventional variant the RAAF is already getting. But it has exactly the same sensor suite, sensor fusion and data-sharing ability. These make every asset in a taskforce better. When you really get down to it, the question is, would we prefer to have an F-35 with slightly less capability in the fight, or no F-35 and potentially no ADF in the fight at all?"

Source: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/plan-b-for-the-f-35/

[spazsinbad]

What is the F-35 for, exactly?
30 Jan 2019 Sam Roggeveen

"...My old Defence Department colleague Marcus Hellyer, now with the think-tank ASPI, argues on The Strategist that the range of the F-35, and specifically the “A” variant Australia is getting, is insufficient to give Australia a sustained presence more than 1000 nautical miles away from home bases. The answer might be to buy an additional squadron of the F-35B, he says, a jump-jet variant that can operate from amphibious ships such as HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide. Hellyer also suggests buying a third ship from which to base this squadron.... [then the five HELL YEAH scenarios]

...My concern with these scenarios is that the tail is wagging the dog. For instance if, as Marcus acknowledges, it is becoming increasingly dangerous to undertake large-scale amphibious operations against adversaries with even modest anti-ship capabilities, then maybe instead of spending money to marginally decrease that danger, we should think about ruling out contested amphibious operations altogether. What pressing national-security concern is actually met by such a capability, anyway? Marcus talks generally about “going up against the Chinese fleet in the South China Sea”, [BOLLOCKS!] but even if that were to happen, in what plausible future would such a clash involve an amphibious landing by the ADF?...

...It seems the main justification for Australia to extend its F-35 capability further outward is to support an amphibious warfare capability which we don't really need, and which would be too dangerous to use against even a moderately competent adversary.

Marcus does raise one intriguing suggestion that I had previously not considered. His additional amphibious ship could, he argues, do double duty: it could be a part-time aircraft carrier for the F-35B but also serve as a mobile base for a large force of anti-submarine helicopters. You should already have guessed that I am opposed to the first part of that idea, but instead of buying additional amphibious ships for anti-submarine warfare, maybe we should think about converting one we already have. Take a look at the appendix to this ASPI report to get a sense of how useful a large force of helicopters could be to detect and attack enemy submarines. https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com ... rigate.pdf (2Mb) [just some ASW irrelevance to this thread]

At the heart of debates such as this one is a difference over how Australia should deter a potential adversary – should it be by threat of punishment (we can hurt you) or threat of denial (you can't hurt us)? I tend to favour the latter approach, and the land-based F-35 can play an important part in a force which meets that requirement. Any more would be an indulgence, not to mention that it would be badly received by our neighbours." [Why do we care about the neighbours?]

Source: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-inter ... 35-exactly

[element1loop]

In an ideal world the 'neighbors' would approve of ADF with F-35B carriers, in the same way we currently approve of whatever they do to improve mutual regional defence readiness. Otherwise, like you say, who cares, it's our defence need, not yours.

The high-end ASW potential is better already (and into the medium term) than it has ever been. If we use the ASW platforms we have (plus will be getting) properly, with the right combination of sensors and support, it can kick-ass and be scaled-up as needed.

I doubt 1,000 troops are going to be traveling via LHD except where there's no option to move them closer, via wide-body military or civilian jets. Thus the transiting LHD is more of a kit transporter, with 300 to 350 souls (mostly navy) on them and they volunteered for service that involved war. Let the RAN sort their weaknesses out properly.

And if it isn't to be F-35Bs, then at least put more VLS on to the AWDs and Hunters, with an AEW helicopter on the LHDs, to enable a proper '5th-gen' connected defence capability, to ensure the kit arrives where you want it.

And given SEA is mostly islands, and Australia has a lot of off-shore islands, plus there are many key strategic islands close-ish to Australia, it seems very unwise to rule-out necessary protected amphib-ashore operations - when we absolutely have to do that. It's a capability we do need, even if to act as a deterrent to the likely suspects.

All of which would work so much better with even limited A2A-only F-35B capabilities plus its SA data flow (i.e. with limited or no A2G weapons on ship) ... and especially with a third Canberra Class available.

I'd happily forego half of the $50 billion in magic-unicorn-propelled "COTS" submarines (finally delivered by 2056) to get that mix.

[steve2267]

Stoooopid question: Why are we (i.e. here on F-16.net) suddenly discussing Aussie flattops? I thought I had raised the topic a while back (a year or two?) only to get promptly smacked down.

In my never never, perfect world (enema of the good world), Australia would have naval "battle groups" -- call it what you will. I like the number three. Three naval battle groups. Say one for the west, and one for the east (or north). And one for maintenance / training. In said battle group, you'd have a carrier, and an amphib flattop (an LHD). On the carrier you plunk your squadron of F-35 Killer Bees along with ASW helos or whatever (CV-22B's anyone?). On the LHD you plunk your gyrenes & vertical lift support & attack. That the "carrier" and LHD happen to be the same class of ship is happy coincidence. So... in my happy little world, Australia would have six Spanish-built LHDs. Build the LHD's all the same... and you might be able to keep prying eyes from knowing on which boats your Killer Bees are located -- like the old "shell game."

Since real life budgets and what not get in the way of three Aussie naval battle groups... IF Australia were to acquire a third LHD and the Killer Bees to man her... I would argue in favor of spending the Australian dollars to add the aviation facilities to the two existing LHDs as well. EVEN IF you only base the F-35Bs on one LHD... by having two other aviation-capable LHDs, you open up options: you can play the shell game and keep potential adversaries guessing as to where the F-35's are located, you put in place additional ships should the ability to acquire additional F-35B's arise, you create additional basing options should circumstances call for the Americans or maybe the Japanese to "borrow" a ship, and lastly, should your "carrier" get sunk or damaged, you have options to move your aircraft to another lili pad.

But what do I know? Probably not much.

[spazsinbad]

I did not realise you were so sensitive SteveBoyWonder. The context of your 'smackdown' would be important. Why this 'new' thread exists is to take Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs more seriously than perhaps in the past when other musings were less defined. We suffer from lack of information about "what is needed to make F-35Bs operate from the 'designed to operate F-35Bs LHDs'". Generalities therefore supremely reign with speculation one way or tuther the order of the day.

The Japanese order for F-35Bs on top of an existing order has prompted the 'common taters' to spring forth shoots above ground, canvassing the idea aforementioned in a more positive way - rather than the usual NOPE - NOT GUNNA HAPPEN.

If others can rave about such matters - but not the StevieOfMuchWondering - that would be sad indeed. However as you will have been chided afore - Australia is a small population country - your idea of a 3 part BATTLE GROUP ain't gonna fly.

As an aside another forum with you would think an interest in these matters has just shut a thread specifically about 'Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs' because they (certified defence professionals) have grown tired of what they think is a debate finished.

[steve2267]

Yes... I do wonder most days. Some more than others.

Still and all... I see no harm in "debating" these matters in a polite and professional manner. Certainly it marks a change in pace from the F-35 vs this-that-or-the-other-French-thing-that-kills-all-with-active-stealth.

"certified defence professionals" sounds like a fancy term for degreed idiots that cannot find their **** with both hands. Sometimes the smarty pants ain't so smart.

And... while i did mention an "idea" for a three battlegroup Aussie navy... I do believe I mentioned that was in a "perfect" world, and since perfection is the enema of the good... I sketched out an argument for why having three LHD's, all F-35B capable, would bring additional operational capability and flexibility to such an arrangement. I would argue that it makes more sense to upgrade the two Canberra-class boats to be able to conduct F-35B operations, rather than add a third ship, because then you gain the capability of performing ops from either boat. And you still might be able to play a shell game and keep an enema guessing as to which boat has the Lightnings.

But if it were to end up being only one additional LHD, albeit an F-35B capable boat along with F-35Bs... at least Aussieland would be in the game.

FWIW.

I return you to your previously scheduled wonderings...

[Corsair1963]

Odd are that Australia will acquire the F-35B and likely modify the Canberra Class to operate them. Sorry, that some get so worked up about the idea....


"IMHO"