F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft carrier

[spazsinbad]

If the Canberra’s can handle Ospreys, me thinks they can either take Bees too, or the changes required would be “minimal.”

Me also wonders if the Brit’s development of SRVL might not eliminate any ‘thermal’ deck issues, as the heat load should be far less concentrated, spread out across the deck, as it were. The only question I see is if they are wide enough to support SRVL. In other words, VL would be a rare, possibly emergency use only recovery mode on the Canberra’s.

Please forget about a 'proper' SRVL for such narrow decks. However a CREEPING VL has been mentioned by others including 'QS' for alleviating heat issues on deck and/or FOD issues ashore. Being easy to fly seems an easy F-35B solution however USMC went for the intercostal ribs to allow successive quick VLs on the same landing spots for their LHA ConOps.

[blindpilot]

IF speculation is allowed I spy w... IF going to the 'PULL the other one' trouble then why not get a 3rd AV LHD?

The only reason would be cost. If yooze got a spare $B or two, I'm with you ..get a 3rd. The AVB doesn't operate AC. The puller 35's get craned over especially if as normal, it's docked at a friendly pier, or helo's can jump over to provide operating LHD deck space for the 35's. It's just a overflow personnel, maintenance focused support ship. The LHD decks would have to operate the AC. The AVB is just cheap, and gettable with budget... But I am still holding out for the Brits selling Oz the POW for a song.

BP

[element1loop]

But I am still holding out for the Brits selling Oz the POW for a song.

They would totally spew and never get over it. I like your cheap (and extremely ugly) support ship option, the F-35B would be the cheap transient insurance policy, and not an expensive semi-continuous capability.

[spazsinbad]

An e-mail correspondent of much knowledge of these issues has assured me that the STEVE George artickles is de troof.

http://defencetechnologyreview.realview ... 6#folio=26
&
http://centralblue.williamsfoundation.o ... ve-george/

A PDF of this article so it is somewhere on the forum however I'm getting a bit fed up as I have other things to do.....

Could not find first article so it is attached as an 8 Page PDF (pages 26-32 of DTR Issue 06; Feb 2015) [found it - TEXT!]

LHD Juan Carlos I, in-cockpit Osprey CQ -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcPHjVCgPC0

[spazsinbad]

189 page PDF with most of Oz RAAF F-35B on Oz RAN LHDs for & against articles is attached below. PRN = reprinted etc.

[ricnunes]

Guys,

when you say that purchasing a 3rd LHD for "dedicated F-35B operations" or purchase a Sea Control Ship (light carrier) or even a "full fledged" carrier like the British QE-class are better or more ideal solutions than adapting the current Canberra-class LHDs to operate the F-35B, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I actually agree with you.

However, there's the fund/resource limitations on the Australian part. These limitations are IMO made even worse since the Australian Navy is currently and in the foreseeable future engaged in a major modernization which involves at least two (2) major shipbuilding programs which are Hunter-class frigate based on the British Type 26 Global Combat Ship design (9 ships planned) and the Attack-class submarine which is based on the French Shortfin Barracuda submarine design (12 subs planned).

As such I don't think that there's funds and/or political will to purchase/build a new ship to work as a F-35B dedicated carrier (being it a LHD or otherwise). So and again and risking myself of being repetitive here but due to the reasons above, the only chance that I see Australia to operate something which resembles a F-35B carrier is to purchase a few F-35Bs and adapt the Canberra-class ships to carry these F-35Bs when/if needed and even this is a remote (or even unlikely) chance I believe/agree!
And while (and also again) this is not the "ideal" solution it may be the only affordable option for Australia now and/or in the foreseeable future.

[Conan]

Guys,

when you say that purchasing a 3rd LHD for "dedicated F-35B operations" or purchase a Sea Control Ship (light carrier) or even a "full fledged" carrier like the British QE-class are better or more ideal solutions than adapting the current Canberra-class LHDs to operate the F-35B, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I actually agree with you.

However, there's the fund/resource limitations on the Australian part. These limitations are IMO made even worse since the Australian Navy is currently and in the foreseeable future engaged in a major modernization which involves at least two (2) major shipbuilding programs which are Hunter-class frigate based on the British Type 26 Global Combat Ship design (9 ships planned) and the Attack-class submarine which is based on the French Shortfin Barracuda submarine design (12 subs planned).

As such I don't think that there's funds and/or political will to purchase/build a new ship to work as a F-35B dedicated carrier (being it a LHD or otherwise). So and again and risking myself of being repetitive here but due to the reasons above, the only chance that I see Australia to operate something which resembles a F-35B carrier is to purchase a few F-35Bs and adapt the Canberra-class ships to carry these F-35Bs when/if needed and even this is a remote (or even unlikely) chance I believe/agree!
And while (and also again) this is not the "ideal" solution it may be the only affordable option for Australia now and/or in the foreseeable future.

When I see something like this, I’m really not that sure you follow Australia defence capability acquisition all that closely...

We don’t buy a ‘few’ of anything. That isn’t hubris. What we buy, is a particular level of capability. We don’t have funding issues. If we decide to buy something it is VERY well funded. What we do is choose to limit our overall defence investment. There is a reason we buy 24 new fighters and announce we are spending $6.6B to do so... There is a reason we announce we are buying 12 submarines and that it will cost $50B to do so and there is a reason we are spending $16.6B to recapitalise our 72 aircraft strong, fighter fleet...

Unlike most nations we announce we are paying for the full capability AND operating costs upfront. There is no scenario where we decide to get back into the ‘carrier game’ (regardless of the number of fighters per ship, that is how it will be portrayed in the media) and do so by buying a ‘few’ fighters and simply plonking them onto our existing ships...

Thinking so seriously misunderstands how capability development occurs within Australia.

[Conan]

Only now you mention the number of F=35Bs. Thank you. Are these 48 F-35Bs extra, with 100 F-35As purchased all told?

The ‘numbers’ that you seem so concerned about (as if that is anywhere near the most important part of this debate) were never ‘solid.’

The proposal never got to a planning stage, let alone a formal project. We don’t have 100 approved F-35 aircraft yet. We have 72 approved aircraft... Talking about ‘extra’ or ‘above’ or ‘in addition to’ is more than pointless. No serious staff work has ever been done on the idea and there are no hidden ‘vignettes’ for F-35B capability in the deepest, darkest corners of Russell Offices or Bungendore...

The proposal was a ‘captains call’ by a Prime Minister so inept he couldn’t last a single term in office. No Government before or since has shown the slightest inclination towards such a capability.

[ricnunes]

We don’t buy a ‘few’ of anything. That isn’t hubris. What we buy, is a particular level of capability. We don’t have funding issues. If we decide to buy something it is VERY well funded. What we do is choose to limit our overall defence investment. There is a reason we buy 24 new fighters and announce we are spending $6.6B to do so... There is a reason we announce we are buying 12 submarines and that it will cost $50B to do so and there is a reason we are spending $16.6B to recapitalise our 72 aircraft strong, fighter fleet...

For starters I don't get your problem with the "few of anything" statement/term. Are you saying or implying that Australia never bought a "few" of anything? Because if you do then how about the EA-18 Growler?? You guys (Australia) purchased 12 (twelve) of them - that's IMO is a "few" of them.
The same would be if for example Australia purchased lets say 20-30 F-35Bs. Anyway, my point with the "few" regarding the F-35B is that they would always be fewer (and quite so) when compared to the F-35A.

Then there's the "We don't have funding issues" comment of your, what you mean with this? Or really?
At first glance I'm starting to believe that you actually seem to believe that money grows on trees there in Australia. You see, not only you (Australia) are a developed first world country which like in any of such countries in the world obviously expends lots (and lots!) of money/resources on vital sectors such as Education, Health, Civilian Infrastructures (Roads, Bridges...), etc... and then you are also expending lots of money on lots and expensive military programs such as F-35, Frigates, Submarines and many other upcoming programs such as the Tiger gunship helicopter replacement, etc, etc, etc... and all of this coupled with the fact that Australia has a relatively low population which by itself doesn't generate that much of a huge GDP like for example the USA (this despite Australia being on the top 15 when it comes to GDP).

So call me whatever you want but I don't believe for a second that Australia will have a combination of funds and political will to buy a new and dedicated ship to act as a F-35B carrier.

Unlike most nations we announce we are paying for the full capability AND operating costs upfront. There is no scenario where we decide to get back into the ‘carrier game’ (regardless of the number of fighters per ship, that is how it will be portrayed in the media) and do so by buying a ‘few’ fighters and simply plonking them onto our existing ships...

Thinking so seriously misunderstands how capability development occurs within Australia.

If you think that you're special in the world then let me be the bearer of "bad news", you're not!
In order for Australia or any other nation to get back to the carrier business, IMO it must:
1- Decide if it really want to get back or into to the "carrier business"
2- If the answer to point 1- is yes then it must decide how it will get back to the carrier business. The way it will get back to the carrier business is fully dependent on how many resources are actually available which is fully dependent on the overall military budget and what's left of that budget which is not much if any if you're already in middle of some major military procurement programs which is exactly the case of Australia.

Or resuming, if Australia wasn't in the middle of some major restructure or more precisely having many and expensive military procurement programs running at the same time in progress (see above) then I would be inclined to believe in the possibility that Australia could get that "3rd ship"/dedicated carrier. But it is not (again, see above) so I don't believe in this possibility.
But who knows, maybe Santa and the Reindeers could bring one for Christmas

[spazsinbad]

Only now you mention the number of F=35Bs. Thank you. Are these 48 F-35Bs extra, with 100 F-35As purchased all told?

The ‘numbers’ that you seem so concerned about (as if that is anywhere near the most important part of this debate) were never ‘solid.’

The proposal never got to a planning stage, let alone a formal project. We don’t have 100 approved F-35 aircraft yet. We have 72 approved aircraft... Talking about ‘extra’ or ‘above’ or ‘in addition to’ is more than pointless. No serious staff work has ever been done on the idea and there are no hidden ‘vignettes’ for F-35B capability in the deepest, darkest corners of Russell Offices or Bungendore...

The proposal was a ‘captains call’ by a Prime Minister so inept he couldn’t last a single term in office. No Government before or since has shown the slightest inclination towards such a capability.

You can be as dismissive as you wish of my interest in these matters, however if a RAAF bigwig says, as quoted in the Oz thread, that the F-35B is in the mix for the last tranche of aircraft to make the 'mythical 100 total' then YES numbers are important. I'll be dismissive of your laughable back of a napkin cost. It is ridiculous and you know it - there's the rub. You left out the 'inept' DefMin of the day also.

[Corsair1963]

While, officially the number is 72 F-35's. It has been stated many times that the RAAF really want and have a need for ~100. This is nothing new and has been discussed countless time over the years.


So, does anybody really doubt that the RAAF will get an additional 28 maybe more F-35's in the end??? Also, would anybody be surprised if some or all were F-35B's???

[element1loop]

Also, would anybody be surprised if some or all were F-35B's???

Operating from land, yes I'd be very surprised if Bs were part of a RAAF mix, we aren't in the same situation as Japan's Island basing option, Taiwan's base vulnerability or Finland's desire for dispersion, where the B would make more sense.

For Australia it makes more sense to stick with the A, and get the extra range and the extra internal hitting power, to hold an opponent back, and invest in runway repairs and regeneration (which we've done).

Sans the intent to use them on ships it makes as much sense for RAAF to buy 25% B as it would make for the USAF to buy 25% B. If we needed B we could buy them if a decision to use them on a ship is made.

[weasel1962]

Guys,

when you say that purchasing a 3rd LHD for "dedicated F-35B operations" or purchase a Sea Control Ship (light carrier) or even a "full fledged" carrier like the British QE-class are better or more ideal solutions than adapting the current Canberra-class LHDs to operate the F-35B, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I actually agree with you.

However, there's the fund/resource limitations on the Australian part. These limitations are IMO made even worse since the Australian Navy is currently and in the foreseeable future engaged in a major modernization which involves at least two (2) major shipbuilding programs which are Hunter-class frigate based on the British Type 26 Global Combat Ship design (9 ships planned) and the Attack-class submarine which is based on the French Shortfin Barracuda submarine design (12 subs planned).

As such I don't think that there's funds and/or political will to purchase/build a new ship to work as a F-35B dedicated carrier (being it a LHD or otherwise). So and again and risking myself of being repetitive here but due to the reasons above, the only chance that I see Australia to operate something which resembles a F-35B carrier is to purchase a few F-35Bs and adapt the Canberra-class ships to carry these F-35Bs when/if needed and even this is a remote (or even unlikely) chance I believe/agree!
And while (and also again) this is not the "ideal" solution it may be the only affordable option for Australia now and/or in the foreseeable future.

On the resource limitation, its not just monetary. RAN had issues crewing the 55 crew collins sub. Introducing a 680 crew PoW isn't exactly going to make things easier.

Converting the Canberras elicits the lowest number of issues (lowest risk) imho. Its already crewed. Even a 3rd canberra may provide some economies of scale i.e. rotating crews across the 3 vessels.

[knowan]

Are you saying or implying that Australia never bought a "few" of anything? Because if you do then how about the EA-18 Growler?? You guys (Australia) purchased 12 (twelve) of them - that's IMO is a "few" of them.

For an Air Force the size of the RAAF, 12 EW platforms is considerable.

Further, the EA-18Gs were purchased only a few years after 24 F/A-18F, and 12 of those 24 were wired for possible conversion to EA-18G.

Operating from land, yes I'd be very surprised if Bs were part of a RAAF mix, we aren't in the same situation as Japan's Island basing option, Taiwan's base vulnerability or Finland's desire for dispersion, where the B would make more sense.

For Australia it makes more sense to stick with the A, and get the extra range and the extra internal hitting power, to hold an opponent back, and invest in runway repairs and regeneration (which we've done).

Sans the intent to use them on ships it makes as much sense for RAAF to buy 25% B as it would make for the USAF to buy 25% B. If we needed B we could buy them if a decision to use them on a ship is made.

A conflict with China is the biggest concern for the Australian military for the foreseeable future, which would almost certainly require deployment of Australian naval vessel far outside of range of F-35As based in Australia.

The more likely a conflict with China becomes, the more likely Australia will seek naval F-35B capability.

[element1loop]

Operating from land, yes I'd be very surprised if Bs were part of a RAAF mix, we aren't in the same situation as Japan's Island basing option, Taiwan's base vulnerability or Finland's desire for dispersion, where the B would make more sense.

For Australia it makes more sense to stick with the A, and get the extra range and the extra internal hitting power, to hold an opponent back, and invest in runway repairs and regeneration (which we've done).

Sans the intent to use them on ships it makes as much sense for RAAF to buy 25% B as it would make for the USAF to buy 25% B. If we needed B we could buy them if a decision to use them on a ship is made.

A conflict with China is the biggest concern for the Australian military for the foreseeable future, which would almost certainly require deployment of Australian naval vessel far outside of range of F-35As based in Australia. The more likely a conflict with China becomes, the more likely Australia will seek naval F-35B capability.

I'm doubting that will be the case knowan. We just saw Australia pass on buying an up-scaled fleet. We didn't go for the extra LHD, nor buy extra DDG, and now it's just 9 new (very nice) ASW frigates, and the number of new OPVs and patrol craft in general is bizarrely small as well. Plus the sub force plan intends the first delivered around 2035, through to about mid 2055! Which is very late, and way too slow (metaphor for the whole ****ing program).

On top of this, the VLS cell numbers, weapon types and their numbers, on all of these platforms is quite underwhelming, given what you say. Plus we apparently passed on the carriers already too, and won't thus have the fleet to make them work if we wanted to.

So I think it's much more likely the ADF has quietly decided investing in a larger naval expeditionary fleet that is too expensive to buy, too expensive to operate, too expensive to defend properly, plus very expensive to man, with too much exposure to modern aircraft and weapons is not the way to go to provide the most capability for the buck and assure the capability degrades gracefully in a real battle.

In other words, ADF is going to focus on airforce offensive long-range strikes, plus drone force development, ASW and anti-ship, and not on fleet air power at all from here. And to deploy ground forces via air as much as possible also, and have the amphibs for more limited operations closer to home, or under adequate cover, or in a large allied force that has navair. But mostly to get the battle gear to where it needs to be, for the forces that came by air, or dropped in. So I'm looking more at what can be done from the air to develop meaningful capabilities, especially regional range strike, as it seems clear the navy is not going to be getting much larger and is definitely not going to have a capacity to deliver sufficient strike salvos at sufficient standoff distance, and its repeatability will be too slow to be credible or highly effective.

That's unless you operate dedicated carriers (think two x America Class variant) with F-35B and the larger navy it needs, that has a lot more weapons, in a lot more cells, and that seems to be a non-starter in the capability planning thus far, as the money will not be coming.

So a focus on airforce combat air power and its delivery of weapons will necessarily predominate in ADF capability development, as things become more demanding from here.