F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft carrier

optimist · by **optimist** » 14 Feb 2019, 06:48

weasel1962 wrote:
optimist wrote:That's OK, you may not know who Jennings and Co. are. You can take them seriously if you wish to, ADF doesn't. The LHD and F-35b were rejected on cost etc. F-35b never made a mention in the white paper

I understand your perception of the credibility of the people that made the submissions.

What I'm asking for is where is the "official" rejection? Not making a mention is not an official rejection.

It's not my perception only, you missed my edit to where he was kicked out of parliament and is now busking on street corners.
Page 4 of the thread I put up covers the report and not making the white paper. it is a rejection.

If you read the senate transcript you would have found that Admiral Griggs, Lt Gen. Morrison, Air Marshall Brown, and ADF Chief Hurley haven't asked for the F-35Bs and saw no need . That's all the chiefs at the time.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 14 Feb 2019, 06:53

optimist wrote:t's not my perception only, you missed my edit to where he was kicked out of parliament and is now busking on street corners.
Page 4 of the thread I put up covers the report and not making the white paper. it is a rejection.

I'm not questioning your view on the submitters.

What I may disagree is on your definition of "rejection". Are you saying that anything that doesn't make the white paper or doesn't get mentioned in parliament = rejected? They haven't talked about the F-35 replacement. Does it mean it won't get replaced?

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 14 Feb 2019, 06:54

weasel1962 wrote:
optimist wrote:That's OK, you may not know who Jennings and Co. are. You can take them seriously if you wish to, ADF doesn't. The LHD and F-35b were rejected on cost etc. F-35b never made a mention in the white paper

I understand your perception of the credibility of the people that made the submissions.

What I'm asking for is where is the "official" rejection? Not making a mention is not an official rejection.

Thanks to the 'weasel' - a great point made well & succinctly. Now our dearest 'optimist' wants us to read a FOUR page forum thread about these matters. AS IF we don't have enough material - IF NOT THE SAME - here. And dear oh dearie me did I not post a PDF about this topic (several have been posted here over the years) that will have all the material?

18 Dec 2018 is a good bet for it…. F-35B on Oz LHDs 18dec2018 PRN pp189.pdf

download/file.php?id=29146 (PDF 9.2Mb) LINKS to material online are in the PDF copy/paste

optimist · by **optimist** » 14 Feb 2019, 06:56

I'm saying because Abbott had a brain fart, the ADF had to spend money to do a report on including it in the white paper. Telling him why he was an idiot and as such the LHD/F-35 never made the white paper for a future plan. The idea was thrown out and no one in ADF ever supported it, as statements to parliament by the ADF chiefs testifies to this..

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 14 Feb 2019, 07:01

optimist wrote:I'm saying because Abbott had a brain fart, the ADF had to spend money to do a report, telling him why he was an idiot and as such the LHD/F-35 never made the white paper for a future plan. The idea was thrown out and no one in ADF ever supported it.

That is your view, which we understand. No need to repeat.

What I'm asking is where is the proof that "no one in ADF ever supported it"? They could be working on it as we speak. Just because you don't hear it, doesn't mean anything. There's a big difference between what you think the ADF said versus what the ADF actually said. I'm asking for the latter.

optimist · by **optimist** » 14 Feb 2019, 07:03

The proof is the statements by ADF to parliament, and the report saying it was too hard and expensive and the idea was thrown out. I don't know what else you want them to do.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 14 Feb 2019, 07:05

Once again 'optimist' paraphrases BADLY what he thinks ADF thinks. IF ONLY said 'optimist' would unnerstan copy/paste.

optimist · by **optimist** » 14 Feb 2019, 07:12

I guess 4 pages is too much for some to read :doh:

PM's floating fighter jet plan quietly sunk by Defence
https://www.afr.com/news/politics/pms-f ... 707-gi6qxj

"Prime Minister Tony Abbott's proposal to put F-35 fighter jets on the Navy's two 27,000-tonne troop transport assault ships has been quietly dropped ahead of the government's defence white paper after it was found the ships would require extensive reworking and the project was too costly.

Mr Abbott asked defence planners in May last year to examine the possibility of putting up to 12 of the short-take-off and vertical-landing F-35Bs on to the two ships – the largest in the Navy – which carry helicopters and are likely to be primarily used to transport troops and equipment to war or disaster zones....

...Defence sources have told The Australian Financial Review that the proposal was "still in the white paper mix" up until some weeks ago.

But one source close to the white paper was emphatic on Tuesday that "it will now not make the cut".

"There were just too many technical difficulties involved in modifying a ship which takes helicopters to take fighter jets and it is also very expensive," the source said. "You can safely say it has been dropped."

The white paper, which lays down the Abbott government's 20-year vision for defence – including a $275 billion-plus weapons wishlist – is expected to be released next month...."

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 14 Feb 2019, 07:37

At last some copy/paste with an URL - wonders will NEVER cease here. So glad you returned from your recent vapours. We have a newspaper source quoting an anonymous defence source that the idea was 'quietly dropped' being too expensive. Then there were too many technical difficulties to modify LHDs for operating the F-35B. This is the NUB - what are they?

We have reporter saying 'the PM proposal' (not an offering) so I guess now we search PDF available here for ABBOTT quote.

08 JUL 2015 article above posted: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=294803&hilit=floating+fighter+quietly#p294803

optimist · by **optimist** » 14 Feb 2019, 07:41

Well did the f-35b make the white paper cut?
Did Abbott do any flag waving about the f-35b, other than his original period in 2014.
Did any of the statements to parliament by ADF support the f-35b?

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 14 Feb 2019, 07:42

I can see you have issues with what people post here. Why ask questions - IF - you can provide answers. Please do so....

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 14 Feb 2019, 07:52

I was/am still trying to find statements in parliament relating to the F-35B. Can't seem to find any. Not sure where the references came from...

optimist · by **optimist** » 14 Feb 2019, 07:57

optimist wrote:Well did the f-35b make the white paper cut?
Did Abbott do any flag waving about the f-35b, other than his original period in 2014.
Did any of the statements to parliament by ADF support the f-35b?

Question 1, answer, NO the f-35b didn't make the long term plans of the gov in the white paper..
Question 2 answer, NO, Abbott was very quiet on the F-35b, I don't recall any further statements wanting it, after the 2014 period.
Question 3 Answer, NO, no one from ADF supported the f-35b to parliament in hearings

optimist · by **optimist** » 14 Feb 2019, 08:06

weasel1962 wrote:I was/am still trying to find statements in parliament relating to the F-35B. Can't seem to find any. Not sure where the references came from...

read these 4 pages, http://www.adf-messageboard.com.au/invb ... =2521&st=0
it covers the subject very well and has all the links you will need, including the quotes to parliament (you can also search parliament from this link https://www.aph.gov.au/ for all references to the f-35b.
click on the various headings to each section.
Search Site HansardBills and LegislationChamber DocumentsVideosCommittees, Inquiries and HearingsSenators and Members

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 14 Feb 2019, 08:21

Conan wrote:
Quite similar. The case of a fantasy acquisition of F-35B is on the complete opposite side of reality, just as the F-22 / F-111 'missileer' advocates were 10-15 years ago.

The F-35B advocates are also quite similar to the F-22A/F-111 advocates in that it is not and never was supported as a credible option by the ADF or either side of Government...

So get over that little "hurdle" and maybe it becomes more likely...

OMG it's a "fantasy" to suggest the ADF may acquire a modest number of F-35B's. Which, could operate from LHD's (Juan Carlos/Canberra) that were designed to do so from the start and/or austere airfields close to the front.

Honestly, some of you guys sound just like the same critics we heard for years. Telling us on how the F-35A was a failure in the first place and just a complete waste of time and money. Now we hear the same thing with the prospect of buying F-35B's.