F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft carrier

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2018, 00:57
by spazsinbad
Obviously this section of a recent article had a different headline but mostly it was about what we see below. There is more at the URL specifically about the benefits to Australian F-35 Industry and a bit of hand waving about mods to LHDs.
F-35 countdown: Royal Navy completes carrier flight tests
27 Nov 2018 Louis Dillon

Establishing the potential for Australian aircraft carriers [naughty naughty - I have the vapors] 8)
This testing program, particularly as a result of the parallel design process between both the F-35B and the Queen Elizabeth Class, provides an important model for at-sea training, maintenance and operations model for considering the development of Australian fleet of F-35Bs....

...government and strategic policy influencers have made calls for Australia to consider expanding Australia's existing, $17 billion plan for 72 F-35A variants to include the procurement of the STOVL platform to support Australian expeditionary deployments and provide integrated, fixed-wing, fleet air support. Most recently, in 2014, former prime minister Tony Abbott and then defence minister David Johnston, as part of the then in consideration 2016 Defence White Paper, commissioned a review into Australia's LHDs operating a small fleet of the F-35B variant.

While unsuccessful, it served to highlight the serious consideration given to re-establishing Australia's fixed-wing naval aviation capabilities and transforming Australia's maritime power-projection capabilities. In particular, the questions surrounding the impact of operating such a platform on broader defence capabilities, particularly the Air Force, as well as the need to increase the Navy's supporting surface fleet all raised significant questions.... [could've put it in anotherie]

...At both a tactical and strategic level, the F-35B variant would serve to provide Australia with a potent maritime strike capability, not limited by the harsh geographic confines, particularly range, enabling Australia to defend its northern approaches and key strategic interests throughout south-east Asia...."

Source: https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/air-s ... ight-tests

Would have put this post at URL below but it is ….? [lots of other threads hint at this development so IT IS TIME for here]
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53630&p=381154&hilit=carrier+game#p381154 [LOCKED]

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2018, 03:14
by steve2267
IMHO, Ozzieland needs somewhere’s between 4-8 “carriers” of some kind. Of course, there’s always that pesky problem of how to pay for them...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2018, 04:53
by spazsinbad
Australian pop: 24.6 - Canadian pop: 32.7 - American pop: 325.7 - UK pop: 66 - Italy pop: 61 ALL MILLION - do I go on?

Are these teeny tiny aircraft carriers made with LEGO? We need BUMBLE BEE or ARMY ANTS or I dunno - be realistic eh.

Perhaps & I mean PERHAPS when the last tranche of 28 or so F-35s are decided for Oz, perhaps a 3rd LHD comes into play.

With two already manned & well operational by then it will be easy enough to rotate 3rd carrier capable LHD into service.

Perhaps a mid-life refit for current LHDs will make them more suitable for the F-35B when required & all round the world the F-35B on ski jump flat decks being a good idea will be well established one hopes - it will be inevitable methinks.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2018, 06:47
by steve2267
spazsinbad wrote:Australian pop: 24.6 - Canadian pop: 32.7 - American pop: 325.7 - UK pop: 66 - Italy pop: 61 ALL MILLION - do I go on?



And yet Ozzieland be almost the size of the continental United States, with FAR MORE coastline to boot. Sucks to not have the tax base to properly defend all that. Now I am not blaming Aussies. I am NOT accusing youse of not pulling your own weight. Hell, you’re punching above your (population) size, and in many respects are building a world-leading 5th gen Air Force (love your Wedgies). You put Canuckland to shame. As an American, I’m VERY happy to have an ally such as Australia.

That said, in my humble (yet not naval trained) opinion, a sea faring island nation the size of Australia would do to have four mid-sized carriers capable of 40 aircraft. (Of course, for only about 10-15% more, youse supposedly can get a “supercarrier.”). But since mid-sized carriers are probably straight out... I figure eight “light carriers” or LHD’s, or Japanese mother-of-all-destroyers that could either operate as a “light carrier” with 15-24 BumbleBees, or 6 Bees + assorted vertical lift craft (think Osprey or V-280 Valor’s) could do the trick. Two separate platforms in a two “carrier” battle group, or two separate “carrier” battlegroups greatly complicate the Chinese tactical and strategic problem. And even a squadron of Bees is a helluva lot of firepower compared to carrier strike capability of yesteryear.

Figure at any one time, two are in for maintenance, two are doing training work ups, and four are deployed. So eight total. I figure that’s a round number minimum, but it sux that youse can’t afford it.

Hell, IMHO, Japan needs at least eight of those motherships. China doesn’t look to be backing down. Korea four. Singapore two.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2018, 07:11
by spazsinbad
To be realistic Australia relies on the sea/air gap for any invaders to transit. Hit 'em there or earlier because those invaders have to amass forces to make said transit. Then where do these ne'er do wells land? Most of Australia is desert. Very judiciously the coast line in inhabited with less habitable bits a long ways from anywheres important but sure they may get a foothold to be pounded, their supply lines pounded and generally pounded in our great Oz FA: GAFA https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=GAFA

Hence having a truly expeditionary component of our overall force makes sense. The RAN/ARMY/RAAF work on this but neglect the F-35B probably because (for the moment) the RAAF have made assurances about their coverage. Meanwhile we have a forward defence (continental defence as a fall back). Defending forward requires special needs which the RAN/RAAF have slowly acquired within our means. It is a deterrent force. If the baddies get a foothold closer to Oz then perhaps the ARMY expeditionary force gets going. Said force helps keep Pacific Island nations safe as well and law abiding.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2018, 10:40
by element1loop
steve2267 wrote:Two separate platforms in a two “carrier” battle group, or two separate “carrier” battlegroups greatly complicate the Chinese tactical and strategic problem. And even a squadron of Bees is a helluva lot of firepower compared to carrier strike capability of yesteryear. Figure at any one time, two are in for maintenance, two are doing training work ups, and four are deployed. So eight total. I figure that’s a round number minimum, but it sux that youse can’t afford it.


I'd be very happy if RAN bought two USS America-Class amphibious assault ships, but they're ~$4.5 billion AUD each, and require ~1,050 people to crew each of them. That would be the ideal solution for Australia for the next 40 years or so. Then expand the F-35A sqns as/if required. Or better yet, buy 12 B-21s to go with the F-35A's we have.

I'd much rather get that mix and buy half as many French Short-Fin Barracuda subs.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2018, 14:09
by ricnunes
Wouldn't it be much easier and cheaper to simply adapt the two Canberra-class landing helicopter dock to carry the F-35B and as such giving Australia a "carrier"?

The Canberra-class landing helicopter dock is based on the Spanish Juan Carlos I amphibious assault ship-aircraft carrier which was designed to carry AV-8B Harriers. The Canberra-class just like the Juan Carlos I also comes included with a Sky Jump ramp so adapting the F-35Bs to operate from there should be a "no-brainer" and much cheaper than purchase a new carrier of some sorts.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2018, 14:34
by spazsinbad
The claim by the 'naysayers' is that it is too expensive to make the modifications whilst any benefit is not worth it and will take away the main purpose of the LHDs. These questions have been canvassed a lot in this forum in various threads with one at least LOCKED for some reason. Even the MODERATORS here don't like the idea. Reasons against idea are baffling.

"...JCI/LHD was designed to carry AV-8B Harriers..." NOPE she was designed to operate F-35Bs with whatever details were known at that time. YES the JCI operates Spanish Harriers but that is because they are what they have now - but future?

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2018, 14:56
by Conan
spazsinbad wrote:The claim by the 'naysayers' is that it is too expensive to make the modifications whilst any benefit is not worth it and will take away the main purpose of the LHDs. These questions have been canvassed a lot in this forum in various threads with one at least LOCKED for some reason. Even the MODERATORS here don't like the idea. Reasons against idea are baffling.

"...JCI/LHD was designed to carry AV-8B Harriers..." NOPE she was designed to operate F-35Bs with whatever details were known at that time. YES the JCI operates Spanish Harriers but that is because they are what they have now - but future?


Absolutely such an idea will reduce our amphibious capability. If Australia were to gain a carrier capability it would IMHO only make sense as a 3rd Canberra Class vessel, but one designed from the outset with operating F-35B aircraft as the main role with amhib capability second. When it is offline and other taskings allow sure you could Canberra or Adelaide to maintain quals etc, but only at the expense of other capability...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2018, 16:53
by ricnunes
Conan wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:The claim by the 'naysayers' is that it is too expensive to make the modifications whilst any benefit is not worth it and will take away the main purpose of the LHDs. These questions have been canvassed a lot in this forum in various threads with one at least LOCKED for some reason. Even the MODERATORS here don't like the idea. Reasons against idea are baffling.

"...JCI/LHD was designed to carry AV-8B Harriers..." NOPE she was designed to operate F-35Bs with whatever details were known at that time. YES the JCI operates Spanish Harriers but that is because they are what they have now - but future?


Absolutely such an idea will reduce our amphibious capability.


In what way, may I ask??
The JCI/Canberra have two hangar decks or basically, two hangars running across most of the ship's length.
One of the hangars/decks - the upper one - is usually used for storing aviation while the other hangar/deck - the lower one - is used to store the "amphibious stuff" stuff such as Landing crafts, troops and their vehicles, etc...

Yes, if you carry fixed-wing aircraft such as the F-35B or AV-8B technically you'll carry less helicopters which reduces the landing (on shore) assets but on the other hand you'll gain a potent air support wing (or a carrier capability).

Besides, the Spanish don't seem to have much of a "reduce amphibious capability" problems while operating AV-8Bs (which seems to be the norm) and this on their SOLE JCI ship. Moreover Spain retired its dedicated carrier (the Prince of Asturias) since it was deemed that the JCI would cover both the roles of Carrier and Landing Ship (and of course there was also the money/economical factor as well).
So why on Earth would Australia have a problem operating F-35Bs from their TWO Canberra ships??


Conan wrote:If Australia were to gain a carrier capability it would IMHO only make sense as a 3rd Canberra Class vessel, but one designed from the outset with operating F-35B aircraft as the main role with amhib capability second. When it is offline and other taskings allow sure you could Canberra or Adelaide to maintain quals etc, but only at the expense of other capability...


With all due respect but money doesn't grow on trees, you know? Yes, Australia is a rich country and at the same time it is a quite well run country where you don't have a "Banana-Republic" and/or "tin-pot" leadership which can spend all it wants on defense while at the same time "pissing over" the general population's needs.
This being said, Australia is very well equipped military but having a dedicated "third" carrier is almost certainly be "asking too much" since Australia has other priorities (even in terms of military equipment - and this not to mention socially) and money doesn't grow on Australian trees (and neither on the rest of the world, BTW).

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2018, 16:58
by ricnunes
spazsinbad wrote:The claim by the 'naysayers' is that it is too expensive to make the modifications whilst any benefit is not worth it and will take away the main purpose of the LHDs.


More expensive than building a new dedicated carrier from scratch? LOL.
Or even buying a second hand carrier (if there's one for sale)?

I don't think so...

spazsinbad wrote:"...JCI/LHD was designed to carry AV-8B Harriers..." NOPE she was designed to operate F-35Bs with whatever details were known at that time. YES the JCI operates Spanish Harriers but that is because they are what they have now - but future?


I absolutely agree that a carrier/ship that operates the AV-8B will also be able to operate the F-35B as well.
So no problems here for JCI and Canberra, me thinks.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 01:06
by weasel1962
Sounds like a repeat. The cost is not a new-build or new F-35Bs. Its incremental cost of making the LHDs operationally capable and the difference between F-35A cost and F-35B cost. The incremental cost from Australia's budget perspective is not significant.

What should be the decision factor is not the difference in population, but what SLOC means to Australia. If Australia can't defend its SLOC, would all its budget spent on the military be useless? The key is what F-35Bs can contribute to RAAF SLOC security. What I have not seen so far is an Australian politician making a decent public cost benefit analysis of the above equation. Instead there is some misinformation about how F-35As can defend SLOC with tanker support.

There are also some changes to the threat environment since 2017. How much is SLOC really worth to Australia vs the cost of the B?

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 01:13
by spazsinbad
Australia is not a great power, however we are allies with some great powers, who (one hopes) will apply treaty help to defend SLOCs - not only for Oz - but for other allied nations similarly affected. SLOCs go beyond local Oz waters. Yes I agree our RAAF must have a wonderful 'gift of the gab' to be convincing about what they can do - exercises will verify.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 03:07
by marsavian
element1loop wrote:
steve2267 wrote:Two separate platforms in a two “carrier” battle group, or two separate “carrier” battlegroups greatly complicate the Chinese tactical and strategic problem. And even a squadron of Bees is a helluva lot of firepower compared to carrier strike capability of yesteryear. Figure at any one time, two are in for maintenance, two are doing training work ups, and four are deployed. So eight total. I figure that’s a round number minimum, but it sux that youse can’t afford it.


I'd be very happy if RAN bought two USS America-Class amphibious assault ships, but they're ~$4.5 billion AUD each, and require ~1,050 people to crew each of them. That would be the ideal solution for Australia for the next 40 years or so. Then expand the F-35A sqns as/if required. Or better yet, buy 12 B-21s to go with the F-35A's we have.

I'd much rather get that mix and buy half as many French Short-Fin Barracuda subs.


FWIW, a QE carrier costs about £3bn ~ $5.2bn AUD with a crew of 680 and troop capacity of 900. Just an idea if you are thinking long term ...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 04:33
by weasel1962
There are material differences between LHD and CV. A CV, like the QE class, does not have a well deck even after modifications. A CVF operates as an aircraft carrier first, a LHD operates as an amphib first.

Its easy to just to suggest any flat deck. Any 6 year old can do that. The question which a 6 year old can't easily answer is how would a CVF fit into a realistic role within the current RAN operational doctrine. This is also where Spaz's comment on treaty allies come in. Whilst treaty requirements should see what others with bigger guns can do, its also a question of where RAN intends to send their own LHDs.

If its to locations beyond land-based CAP and where the threat of enemy airpower is significant, an F-35B equipped LHD provides more options as the USMC knows. Otherwise as Spaz points out, RAN can and will only send LHDs if treaty allies can provide the air cover i.e. they won't go in alone. Its actually consistent with RAN operational doctrine even from ww2 where the Aussie army will only send troops overseas on troop transports where battleship escorts were available.

Whether Australia is a great power or not, it has operated CV.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 05:15
by spazsinbad
Last A4G Skyhawk cruise with HMAS Melbourne & VF-805 ended abruptly for them in the Indian Ocean on 20th Oct 1980 when the 'last' A4G catapult went bad - the aircraft was lost off the catapult whilst the pilot ejected to be recovered OK.

Subsequently no more A4G embarked ops were carried out although some touch and goes were done to keep A4G skills. The last cruise in 1981 had only the ASW contingent of S-2E/Gs and Sea Kings with Wessex plane guard. And that was that.

CV skills are not there for most after some 37-38 years although some A4G pilots went to the SHAR in UK to gain STOVL experience aboard their CVSs with Sea Harrier (SHAR). I don't know when the last ex-A4G/SHAR pilot hung up his boots.

However some well experienced aforementioned STOVL pilots ex-Oz have vigourously championed F-35Bs on an Oz ski jump. Those stories have appeared on other threads here. Search on BADDAMS or Mark Boast. There must be an 'Oz F-35B on Oz LHD' PDF or two floating about in this forum somewhere. What kind of CV do some people envisage? It will NOT be nuclear with steam being now outdated & requiring a lot more crew compared to a STOVL Ski Jumper. Also as we should know by now the VL is much easier (and yes so is an arrest with F-35C) with the F-35B. SRVL needs a BIG/Wide CVF DECK.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 05:17
by Corsair1963
Amphibious Ships like LHA/LHD don't have the storage capacity in Fuel or Weapons as Aircraft Carriers of a similar size. So, they can't sustain or project power to the same level. Which, is not to say they couldn't be useful. Just not to the same degree as purpose built ships.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 05:20
by spazsinbad
Whatever. I think the answer for small navies is the F-35B on a ski jump deck - what is underneath is up to the NAVY eh.

USA/France have [a] NUCLEAR CATOBAR carrier(s) today. Nuclear Power is out of the question for Australia - appetite NIL.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 06:32
by Corsair1963
Honestly, best solution for smaller navies. Would be something like an enlarged Chakri Naruebet (Sea Control Ship). Which, could operate the F-35B and possibly Ospreys.


htms-chakri-naruebet-aircraft-carrier--thailand.png

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 06:53
by pmi
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, best solution for smaller navies. Would be something like an enlarged Chakri Naruebet (Sea Control Ship).


Which was the Príncipe de Asturias.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 07:07
by weasel1962
pmi wrote:Which was the Príncipe de Asturias.


...and now the Juan Carlos. 800 tons of aviation fuel vs 600 tons on some aircraft carriers.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 08:06
by spazsinbad
I'm shocked here - use an 11,500 ton - 538 foot flight deck (albeit with ski jump) - to HAMPER F-35B ops from the getgo?!

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 09:03
by optimist
spazsinbad wrote:The claim by the 'naysayers' is that it is too expensive to make the modifications whilst any benefit is not worth it and will take away the main purpose of the LHDs. These questions have been canvassed a lot in this forum in various threads with one at least LOCKED for some reason. Even the MODERATORS here don't like the idea. Reasons against idea are baffling.

"...JCI/LHD was designed to carry AV-8B Harriers..." NOPE she was designed to operate F-35Bs with whatever details were known at that time. YES the JCI operates Spanish Harriers but that is because they are what they have now - but future?


The naysayers are the RAN and RAAF CONOPS. An unthinking "why don't we" from the PM at the time, was met with a report dismissing it. As it was asked, the ADF had to give reasons why it was a stupid question. The 2 LHDs are committed, if the gov of the day wants a naval air wing. They are gong to have to buy more ships, not only the carriers. To allocate a lot more money to run the system, with the added support needed.

At most. there is talk of providing a lilly-pad for joint forces

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 09:48
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:
pmi wrote:Which was the Príncipe de Asturias.


...and now the Juan Carlos. 800 tons of aviation fuel vs 600 tons on some aircraft carriers.



Funny, the Wasp Class LHD's carries 1,232 tons of JP-5 aviation fuel. Yet, it's not considered adequate in the Aircraft Carrier Role for sustained Air Operations.......

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 09:49
by marauder2048
Aren't the numbers quoted for "aviation fuel" slightly misleading since the gas turbine, embarked aircraft and
(at least for the US) ground vehicles can, in principle, all eat JP-5?

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 09:50
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:I'm shocked here - use an 11,500 ton - 538 foot flight deck (albeit with ski jump) - to HAMPER F-35B ops from the getgo?!



I said "something like an enlarged Chakri Naruebet (Sea Control Ship)".....i.e. similar in design but much bigger.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 09:54
by Corsair1963
marauder2048 wrote:Aren't the numbers quoted for "aviation fuel" slightly misleading since the gas turbine, embarked aircraft and
(at least for the US) ground vehicles can, in principle, all eat JP-5?



No, the 1,232 is strictly for aircraft. Another 50 tons is carried for vehicles.....

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 10:38
by weasel1962
marauder2048 wrote:Aren't the numbers quoted for "aviation fuel" slightly misleading since the gas turbine, embarked aircraft and (at least for the US) ground vehicles can, in principle, all eat JP-5?


Agreed, but the point is, its irrelevant since as mentioned before, any 6 year old can suggest a flat deck. A 6 year old doesn't need to understand what a limited budget or operational requirement means. Even a CVN doesn't have enough fuel for the USN at some point in time...cue AOR.

The Canberras, being a Juan Carlos design, carries enough fuel and weapons for its intended role. That's why the RAN acquired 2. The Juan Carlos is able to perform a sea control role because it was designed for it. The Canberra has all the essential sea control elements of Juan Carlos minus the most important element: fixed wing fighter.

Arguing for another carrier for the RAN is like telling the USMC they need a ford class CVN and should stop wasting time on the phibs, Sure, in theory possible but in reality waste of bandwidth.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 10:43
by spazsinbad
optimist wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:The claim by the 'naysayers' is that it is too expensive to make the modifications whilst any benefit is not worth it and will take away the main purpose of the LHDs. These questions have been canvassed a lot in this forum in various threads with one at least LOCKED for some reason. Even the MODERATORS here don't like the idea. Reasons against idea are baffling.

"...JCI/LHD was designed to carry AV-8B Harriers..." NOPE she was designed to operate F-35Bs with whatever details were known at that time. YES the JCI operates Spanish Harriers but that is because they are what they have now - but future?

The naysayers are the RAN and RAAF CONOPS. An unthinking "why don't we" from the PM at the time, was met with a report dismissing it. As it was asked, the ADF had to give reasons why it was a stupid question. The 2 LHDs are committed, if the gov of the day wants a naval air wing. They are gong to have to buy more ships, not only the carriers. To allocate a lot more money to run the system, with the added support needed. At most. there is talk of providing a lilly-pad for joint forces

Not only was there "an unthinking PM" but also the then DefMin. Not a bad duo for unthunk. There are no stupid questions - even if the CONOPS are stupid. So 'buy more ships'. I'm jiggy with it. "...At most. there is talk of providing a lilly-pad for joint forces." Nice of you to concede that but a 'lily-pad' will do (I well recall the Dennis theme song "Lillee Lillee Lillee".

So where is this "report dismissing it"? Have you seen it? Why has it not been made public - curious minds want to know.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 10:53
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:If its to locations beyond land-based CAP and where the threat of enemy airpower is significant, an F-35B equipped LHD provides more options as the USMC knows. Otherwise as Spaz points out, RAN can and will only send LHDs if treaty allies can provide the air cover i.e. they won't go in alone. Its actually consistent with RAN operational doctrine even from ww2 where the Aussie army will only send troops overseas on troop transports where battleship escorts were available.

Whether Australia is a great power or not, it has operated CV.


The other thing WWII showed us is we can't rely on 'Great Powers' to provide what they said, or rather, what we believed would be available, when it turns out they're busy elsewhere with their own wrangle, and we're back to not having the support we thought would be there, and having to get dirty and desperate. I think we'd benefit greatly from having two large LHDs as 'carriers' and two LHDs as amphibs, plus the Bay Class cherry on top, to have our own ability to do whatever we must. I think that's definitely worth the price, given the whims of present dynamics. I don't believe for a second we'll see the political confluence that would get us that though.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 11:24
by weasel1962
That's why the original LHD acquisition included an option for a 3rd canberra which was not taken up. I think the time has past for the discussion on the RAN will take up an additional carrier. That ship will not sail (at least until Canberra replacement?). They couldn't fund it then, the current economic climate does not suggest there will be funds now.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 11:57
by spazsinbad
Who's economic climate? Australia's or THE WORLD? Currently Oz is due for reducing the budget deficit (claimed by Libs).

Anyhoo: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-g6JtYKfoGp8/ ... 6_1280.jpg

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 12:28
by weasel1962
If Morrison wants to achieve a budget surplus by 2021, don't expect funds.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 12:42
by spazsinbad
Not sure if you are serious. Australia has funds and more funds - welcome aboard - our 'conomy goes great guns.

http://www.oecd.org/australia/australia ... ummary.htm (Nov 2018)

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 17:00
by ricnunes
weasel1962 wrote:
pmi wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, best solution for smaller navies. Would be something like an enlarged Chakri Naruebet (Sea Control Ship).


Which was the Príncipe de Asturias.



...and now the Juan Carlos. 800 tons of aviation fuel vs 600 tons on some aircraft carriers.



In which (Juan Carlos) is a LHD (and not a "dedicated carrier").

IMO, the best solution for smaller navies are multi-role ships. Actually this extends to most other military equipment nowadays.
Just like the modern Destroyer or Frigate (essentially the same type of ship nowadays) have replaced the variety of ships of the past ranging from Destroyer Escorts, Destroyers, Light Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Battlecruisers and Battleships, the modern LHD is set to replace both Carriers (at least the light ones) and the older types of Landing Ships. This is what IMO makes sense, specially for smaller navies (such as Australia).

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 17:12
by ricnunes
Corsair1963 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:
pmi wrote:Which was the Príncipe de Asturias.


...and now the Juan Carlos. 800 tons of aviation fuel vs 600 tons on some aircraft carriers.



Funny, the Wasp Class LHD's carries 1,232 tons of JP-5 aviation fuel. Yet, it's not considered adequate in the Aircraft Carrier Role for sustained Air Operations.......


You cannot compare the US Navy with the Australian Navy. Heck, you can't even compare the US Navy with basically any other Navy in the world (at least currently).
I'm sure there are a few or even a several reasons why the US Navy operates both LHD's and dedicated CATOBAR Carriers instead of only LHSs and this even in the future with the advent of the F-35B. Some of these reason IMO includes:
- The US Navy have lots of funds available - probably the funds that the US Navy has available surpasses the funds available for the entire Australian Air Force, Navy and Army combined? As such the US Navy can have the "luxury" to operate both types of ships.
- The US Navy CATOBAR Carriers are the pride of the fleet. If suddenly it was admitted that a ship (LHD) which is cheaper and at the same time can perform more roles than the Carrier was able to perform most of the Carrier's tasks then this would put the Carriers future in jeopardy. So no, I don't believe that you'll ever hear something like "LHD can perform most of the roles of a Carrier" from the US Navy (at least in the foreseeable future).

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 22:02
by marauder2048
Corsair1963 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Aren't the numbers quoted for "aviation fuel" slightly misleading since the gas turbine, embarked aircraft and
(at least for the US) ground vehicles can, in principle, all eat JP-5?



No, the 1,232 is strictly for aircraft. Another 50 tons is carried for vehicles.....


In practice, F-76 is preferred for the gas turbines because of its greater (single digit %) energy density
and slightly better lubricity/viscosity.

But the US Navy has looked at various times at JP-5 as a universal at-sea fuel; Navy destroyers have operated
for months on JP-5 with few issues. And LHA-6 is the first LHA where the tradeoff (ownship fuel vs. aviation fuel) can be made.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 22:46
by usnvo
marauder2048 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Aren't the numbers quoted for "aviation fuel" slightly misleading since the gas turbine, embarked aircraft and
(at least for the US) ground vehicles can, in principle, all eat JP-5?



No, the 1,232 is strictly for aircraft. Another 50 tons is carried for vehicles.....


In practice, F-76 is preferred for the gas turbines because of its greater (single digit %) energy density
and slightly better lubricity/viscosity.

But the US Navy has looked at various times at JP-5 as a universal at-sea fuel; Navy destroyers have operated
for months on JP-5 with few issues. And LHA-6 is the first LHA where the tradeoff (ownship fuel vs. aviation fuel) can be made.


Virtually all fuels can be made from JP-5 at the stroke of a pen. This is why the Prepositioning stocks of fuel are all JP-5 (USMC MPS ships, etc). It can be used pretty much universally. DESC has even considered just buying and shipping kerosene everywhere and then just using the appropriate additives to make specific fuels but the logistics would be really complex.

JP-5 can become JP-8 with the stroke of a pen, but once JP-8 can never revert to JP-5. JP-5 can also become DFM with the stroke of a pen, but again can not go back. Shoot, for that matter JP-5 can become JP-4, JetA1, or JetA for that matter.

Gas Turbine Ships have never operated on JP-5 because once you pump the JP-5 into the DFM tanks, it becomes DFM. But, as you note, it works just fine and even works fine in anything that can burn DFM (medium and high speed diesels and steam plants). About the only thing it doesn't work for is slow diesels.

The biggest difference between DFM (F76, also called Diesel 2 commercially) and JP-5 (F44), from a backwardly compatible standpoint, is cost. The Navy saves a huge amount of money by not having JP-5 as its only fuel. It also helps that when the JP-5 is out of specification, you can just downgrade it. The Navy finds it worth the headache of keeping two fuels. For a variety of reasons that don't really apply to the Navy, the Army and USAF would rather have a single common fuel.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2018, 23:34
by marauder2048
Price wise, there's now literally a penny difference between F-76 and JP-5 per gallon.

http://www.dla.mil/Portals/104/Documents/Energy/Standard%20Prices/E_PetroleumStandardPricesFY18_180402.pdf?ver=2018-04-02-103836-967

The 2.5% (on average) better energy density from F-76 is probably what's compelling.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2018, 01:51
by optimist
spazsinbad wrote:
optimist wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:The claim by the 'naysayers' is that it is too expensive to make the modifications whilst any benefit is not worth it and will take away the main purpose of the LHDs. These questions have been canvassed a lot in this forum in various threads with one at least LOCKED for some reason. Even the MODERATORS here don't like the idea. Reasons against idea are baffling.

"...JCI/LHD was designed to carry AV-8B Harriers..." NOPE she was designed to operate F-35Bs with whatever details were known at that time. YES the JCI operates Spanish Harriers but that is because they are what they have now - but future?

The naysayers are the RAN and RAAF CONOPS. An unthinking "why don't we" from the PM at the time, was met with a report dismissing it. As it was asked, the ADF had to give reasons why it was a stupid question. The 2 LHDs are committed, if the gov of the day wants a naval air wing. They are gong to have to buy more ships, not only the carriers. To allocate a lot more money to run the system, with the added support needed. At most. there is talk of providing a lilly-pad for joint forces

Not only was there "an unthinking PM" but also the then DefMin. Not a bad duo for unthunk. There are no stupid questions - even if the CONOPS are stupid. So 'buy more ships'. I'm jiggy with it. "...At most. there is talk of providing a lilly-pad for joint forces." Nice of you to concede that but a 'lily-pad' will do (I well recall the Dennis theme song "Lillee Lillee Lillee".

So where is this "report dismissing it"? Have you seen it? Why has it not been made public - curious minds want to know.

To say you have tunnel vision on this is understatement. At the time there were statements made of not going forward and of the report to gov..and reported in the news.
We can't go anywhere by ourselves and have to work in a joint force, under the US umbrella. The infrastructure needed for a naval air wing, which would probably need more subs, as well as everything above water. Is met with wide eyes when costed out

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2018, 02:49
by h-bomb
marauder2048 wrote:Price wise, there's now literally a penny difference between F-76 and JP-5 per gallon.

http://www.dla.mil/Portals/104/Documents/Energy/Standard%20Prices/E_PetroleumStandardPricesFY18_180402.pdf?ver=2018-04-02-103836-967

The 2.5% (on average) better energy density from F-76 is probably what's compelling.


Wow when did JP5 get so cheap?? Last time I had heard it was almost twice as much as JP8.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2018, 03:09
by marauder2048
even if the CONOPS are stupid.


Part of the issue for dispassionate observers is that these LHDs seem to be massive overkill for their putative mission set
(East Timor intervention part II) but horribly underwhelming for anything more demanding...even from a sortie
generation rate e.g. unmarinized attack and heavy lift helicopters.

So a logical expectation is that these vessels have a spiral upgrade path in mind and the
Australian government is just being coy a la Japan.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2018, 03:34
by element1loop
optimist wrote:We can't go anywhere by ourselves and have to work in a joint force, under the US umbrella. The infrastructure needed for a naval air wing, which would probably need more subs, as well as everything above water. Is met with wide eyes when costed out.


We got $55 bill/yr deficits from pink-batt insulation and school-halls plus two stimulus handouts, and expanded spending everywhere since then. From $22 bill/yr surpluses, to 27% GDP debt just 11 years later, with more deficits. The left will win next round in 2019 and we'll be right back to that abysmal rubbish again. Almost no one got 'wide eyes' about that though, they all said it didn't really matter. Epic wastage on what was not required. I'd rather deficit or debt was for something that counted and actually did provide some lasting economic stimulus and enduring industrial capacity plus a better security environment for the future.

To put it very mildly, the only reason why there are hypocritical 'wide eyes' and a foisted impression that we can't operate for ourselves when required, is because our national political debate and its 'priorities' are utterly absurd, not because we can't afford it

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2018, 03:49
by spazsinbad
marauder2048 wrote:
even if the CONOPS are stupid.


Part of the issue for dispassionate observers is that these LHDs seem to be massive overkill for their putative mission set
(East Timor intervention part II) but horribly underwhelming for anything more demanding...even from a sortie
generation rate e.g. unmarinized attack and heavy lift helicopters.

So a logical expectation is that these vessels have a spiral upgrade path in mind and the Australian government is just being coy a la Japan.

I think you have got it in a nutshell. 8) Rather than my 'tunnel vision' on this matter I see complete denial about the idea from others - without supporting facts - except 'there are none'. If there are facts existing then why cannot we see them?

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2018, 06:43
by Conan
ricnunes wrote:
In what way, may I ask??
The JCI/Canberra have two hangar decks or basically, two hangars running across most of the ship's length.
One of the hangars/decks - the upper one - is usually used for storing aviation while the other hangar/deck - the lower one - is used to store the "amphibious stuff" stuff such as Landing crafts, troops and their vehicles, etc...

Yes, if you carry fixed-wing aircraft such as the F-35B or AV-8B technically you'll carry less helicopters which reduces the landing (on shore) assets but on the other hand you'll gain a potent air support wing (or a carrier capability).


As I said, any attempt to add fixed wing capability to an amphibious ship not intended by us to operate them, will impact on the existing amphibious capability, which is our primary designated role for these ships. Such modifications aren’t done ‘on the fly.’ You’re talking about permanently adding increased fuel bunkerage, increased air weapons storage and increased logistical support capability into the ship (as both fixed wing and rotary wing will need to be maintained and operated simultaneously). Then you need to add into the equation increased personnel to operate the fixed wing, improved air traffic control / operations and sensor / approach systems, improved deck surfaces and aircraft handling capabilities and so on and suddenly all that available space starts to get eaten up very quickly.

Those are just the physical changes necessary. Then you have to consider operational role impacts, self-defence, doctrine and concept of operations scenarios, training and quals issues and the resources that will need to be added to understand and implement these to truly develop capability.

All of these additions will significantly impact on the capability we have, unless you are magically plucking people, money, time and resources off the magic tree, these things apparently come from...

Besides, the Spanish don't seem to have much of a "reduce amphibious capability" problems while operating AV-8Bs (which seems to be the norm) and this on their SOLE JCI ship. Moreover Spain retired its dedicated carrier (the Prince of Asturias) since it was deemed that the JCI would cover both the roles of Carrier and Landing Ship (and of course there was also the money/economical factor as well).
So why on Earth would Australia have a problem operating F-35Bs from their TWO Canberra ships??


Yes they do. They have accepted the level of capability they need includes a fixed wing support capability, but if you think this doesn’t impact the amphibious capability the Juan Carlos can provide, then you trippin buddy.

It’s a trade off of defence priorities. For us, amphibious capability and HADR capability is more important than adding a fixed wing fighter support capability into our current mix. Which is why I mentioned that IF additional capability in the form of fixed wing capability were to be added to the current force structure, we’d be looking at an additional ship, at least.

With all due respect but money doesn't grow on trees, you know? Yes, Australia is a rich country and at the same time it is a quite well run country where you don't have a "Banana-Republic" and/or "tin-pot" leadership which can spend all it wants on defense while at the same time "pissing over" the general population's needs.
This being said, Australia is very well equipped military but having a dedicated "third" carrier is almost certainly be "asking too much" since Australia has other priorities (even in terms of military equipment - and this not to mention socially) and money doesn't grow on Australian trees (and neither on the rest of the world, BTW).


I am well aware of that, hence why I have argued for years and Spaz can concur on this, that F-35B onto Australian ships won’t happen in any form. The Abbott led government a few years back looked into it and there was a AUD$13b price tag to be paid IF we were going to do it and even then only achieved by diminishing the current level of amphibious capability we have.

The technical capability to add fixed wing fighter support capability onto the LHD’s isn’t an issue. It would in fact I’d argue, be the least challenging of the issues we’d have to overcome to achieve it. The financial, political, diplomatic and doctrinal issues would be far greater. I know they aren’t flashy to contemplate on a defence orientated forum where wishlists of capability are far more popular than actually acquiring and implementing such things are, but they exist and are in the forefront of the minds of the people who make capability a reality.

However my proposed solution of a ‘third ship’ is based on RAN’s long range plans. It currently has a project to acquire a civilian standard helicopter carrying, disaster relief / Pacific engagement ship. This ship will do much of the HADR / Regional visit ‘heavy lifting’ in years to come, while RAN focuses on wartime amphibious capability development. RAN will still provide HADR capability from it’s LHD’s and HMAS Choules but it is expected the new ship will relieve much of that burden. RAN ALSO has a requirement and funding to replace HMAS Choules in years to come and this is where the ‘great white hope’ of a fixed wing fighter support capability should be placed, IMHO. Such a ship would be easily designed with fixed wing operations included from the start and could provide additional HADR and amphibious capability to boot. Not to the levels of the Canberra Class obviously, but additional capability nonetheless.

Adding a capability and not diminishing the existing capability will be a far more palatable argument to make to the politicians who will inevitably have to approve such capability. The difficulties won’t go away in terms of political and diplomatic concerns and so forth, but they will be eased domestically when existing capability isn’t impacted and available HADR capability isn’t impacted.

To me, this is the only realistic chance we have of seeing a fixed wing fighter support capability added to the ADF force structure within the next generation or so. Personally I don’t think it will happen at all, but if it does this is the most likely course.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2018, 07:32
by spazsinbad
Well explained 'Conan'. I'm hoping something will happen along lines you mention. Early days and all that. One thing though: [you said about 'F-35Bs on LHDs'] "...The Abbott led government a few years back looked into it and there was a AUD$13b price tag to be paid IF we were going to do it and even then only achieved by diminishing the current level of amphibious capability we have...." How is that price tag arrived at? Does it include a posse of F-35Bs and extras? As they say: "Please explain". Thanks.

A 'little birdie' no pun intended has toldeth me that soon an ASPI piece by Malcolm Davis will KYBOSH the very idea of 'Oz LHDs with Oz F-35Bs'. Several news outlets are lining up their hit pieces also (all to do with Japan & F-35Bs doncha know).

Is F-35B buy on top of the slated 100 F-35As or is it extra (hence accounting will be different). How many extra F-35Bs?

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2018, 13:59
by Conan
spazsinbad wrote:Well explained 'Conan'. I'm hoping something will happen along lines you mention. Early days and all that. One thing though: [you said about 'F-35Bs on LHDs'] "...The Abbott led government a few years back looked into it and there was a AUD$13b price tag to be paid IF we were going to do it and even then only achieved by diminishing the current level of amphibious capability we have...." How is that price tag arrived at? Does it include a posse of F-35Bs and extras? As they say: "Please explain". Thanks.

A 'little birdie' no pun intended has toldeth me that soon an ASPI piece by Malcolm Davis will KYBOSH the very idea of 'Oz LHDs with Oz F-35Bs'. Several news outlets are lining up their hit pieces also (all to do with Japan & F-35Bs doncha know).

Is F-35B buy on top of the slated 100 F-35As or is it extra (hence accounting will be different). How many extra F-35Bs?


My understanding was it never really got beyond a ‘back of the napkin’ level of detail but the proposal supposedly included 2 squadrons of F-35B’s (one operational, 1x training / development / maintenance rotation) plus all the enablers, modifications to the ships and staffing. Whether it was envisaged they would take the place of the existing Super Hornet capability or fill the ‘final 28’ F-35 slots is unknown to me. It never to a serious planning stage at any rate, so such decisions were probably not even considered.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2018, 19:29
by ricnunes
Conan wrote:As I said, any attempt to add fixed wing capability to an amphibious ship not intended by us to operate them, will impact on the existing amphibious capability, which is our primary designated role for these ships.


With an embarked air wing you would lose some amphibious assets indeed but then again you would win in having an organic air support for the embarked amphibious assets, which in some cases could offset the loss of some of the embarked amphibious assets.

Moreover, having a squadron of F-35B and the capability of carrying them on the Canberra LHDs doesn't mean that you would always have to carry the aircraft (F-35B) onboard the ships for every mission.
If the mission warrants the current capability of having two LHDs fully fitted with amphibious assets (plus supporting helicopters) there's absolutely nothing that prevents the Australian Forces of not embarking the F-35Bs on those ships for the mission at hand.

On the other hand, if desired those ships could also operate as "full carriers" by leaving out (not embarking) the amphibious assets and embarking only the aircraft (F-35Bs and Helicopters) plus all the support equipment and supplies.

Or, you could always operate them like the Spanish (or the Americans on their LHDs) by having a mix of (and yes, a compromise of) an air wing compared by F-35Bs (plus helicopters of course) and amphibious assets (even if somehow more reduced).

So here's where I trend to disagree with you (although I can agree with some of your points):
- Having the possibility of embarking the F-35Bs on the Australian Canberra LHD would give more (specially more options) and definitely not less (that's the first of my two main points here)



Conan wrote:Such modifications aren’t done ‘on the fly.’ You’re talking about permanently adding increased fuel bunkerage, increased air weapons storage and increased logistical support capability into the ship (as both fixed wing and rotary wing will need to be maintained and operated simultaneously). Then you need to add into the equation increased personnel to operate the fixed wing, improved air traffic control / operations and sensor / approach systems, improved deck surfaces and aircraft handling capabilities and so on and suddenly all that available space starts to get eaten up very quickly.

Those are just the physical changes necessary. Then you have to consider operational role impacts, self-defence, doctrine and concept of operations scenarios, training and quals issues and the resources that will need to be added to understand and implement these to truly develop capability.

All of these additions will significantly impact on the capability we have, unless you are magically plucking people, money, time and resources off the magic tree, these things apparently come from...


And purchasing a 3rd ship as a "dedicated carrier" wouldn't basically and also have most of if not all the constraints that you mentioned above plus the extra cost/resources and time needed to purchase and operate the new ship, hire and train a new crew (also for the new ship), etc...?

I would say that adding the F-35Bs to the Canberra ships (and mind you again that these ships were designed to operate V/STOL fixed-wing aircraft from the beginning) would be less time and resource consuming option, this if Australia really wants a "carrier" to operate F-35Bs to being with, all of which brings the second of my two main points here.



Conan wrote:Yes they do. They have accepted the level of capability they need includes a fixed wing support capability, but if you think this doesn’t impact the amphibious capability the Juan Carlos can provide, then you trippin buddy.


I would say that "trippin" would be to say that if Australia would purchase the F-35Bs in the future to operate from their Canberra LHD ships that the option of not embarking the F-35B (in case it would be desired to operate the ships with its full amphibious complement) couldn't ever be exercised.
Resuming, having the capability to operate the F-35B (and having the F-35Bs in the inventory) doesn't force the F-35Bs to always be on-board of the Canberra ships.


Conan wrote:It’s a trade off of defence priorities. For us, amphibious capability and HADR capability is more important than adding a fixed wing fighter support capability into our current mix. Which is why I mentioned that IF additional capability in the form of fixed wing capability were to be added to the current force structure, we’d be looking at an additional ship, at least.


And just because all of this is indeed a "trade off of defence priorities" (here I agree with you) than I don't believe that a 3rd ship as a dedicated carrier will ever be an option for Australia (here I disagree with you), this specially when Australia already possesses two (2) ships that are more than capable of operating the F-35B - actually this would be a real trade-off/compromise option.
Actually and like already mentioned by Spaz, it wouldn't be different from what Japan is currently planning to do (and some sources state South Korea as well).

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2018, 19:53
by spazsinbad
I have to belabor the point: Does the $13 Billion AUS include a certain number of F-35Bs with accuotrements and suitable modifications to the TWO LHDs? One can see that number is just ridiculous - perhaps it includes the THIRD aviation LHD???

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 00:08
by blindpilot
Just a couple thoughts even tho I tend to be more USMC focused than Spanish/Australian/etc. Navy issues.

1. The Canberra Class is NOT EQ to Juan Carlos. They bought the basic hull form and a great deal of the structure including all of the island, and virtually all of the fitting is Canberra class unique. This unique work makes it much more than just "turn it back into JC." It is not that easy. Even Juan Carlos has not yet addressed the work of going from Harrier to Lightning, like classified data rooms/ALIS support/etc. If those areas/fittings aren't on Juan Carlos, they are definitely not defined in the Canberra class. (This will be an issue for the Japanese as well. It's more than just slap some thermal paint down.)

2. As seen in USMC/USN wavering on LHA6 or LHA8 class, dock-no dock etc., the conops for amphibious warfare is not lightly set aside for having a baby "aviation centric" vessel. The USMC/USN ended up putting the dock back in ... for a reason. Those same reasons exists for the RAN. America class Flight 0 was a bit too light, hence Flight 1 Bougainville. There is a big picture, and even if the USMC does slap 5-6 fixed wing fighters on their air group, the core Amphib work doesn't go away. (they don't load up 20 very often) In the US fleet, if they ever go "baby carrier" with a LHD/A it is most likely for lack of a CVN, not a first choice option. And most of the Marine Bees will always be looking to set up austere bases and FARPs on land as soon as they can.

Honestly for countries like Australia, I am more and more thinking that with their budget, they would be better off with a cheap Aviation Support ship (as in Falkland's Atlantic Conveyor/AVB Wright/US ESB type cargo ships). If those can be set up to be able to deploy ashore some F-35B's that's probably the most the RAN could hope to afford. A sortie generating aircraft carrier is likely a bridge too far on the old checkbook. Now if they can figure how to occassionally deploy 2 F-35B's as Quick Alert/Air Cap on an accompanying LHD cool. But the ALIS/spare parts/maintenance etc. will need to be on the aviation support cargo vessel, not an LHD redesign.

FWIW MHO,
BP

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 02:02
by spazsinbad
Fair enough - we can but speculate with no details of what is required. I agree about all the F-35B related bidness, secure rooms and such, while I promote the lightest footprint possible to embark some Fleet Defence F-35Bs whenever they are required - which may be never. So why have that capability? Deterrence. Perhaps it is all too expensive, so some missions will be deterred from our point of view. I see the future situation up north increasingly difficult however perhaps an opposite defusion of tension will occur and I ain't a fortune teller. A third NavAv centric LHD specifically fitted out is nice.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 05:29
by element1loop
ricnunes wrote:Actually and like already mentioned by Spaz, it wouldn't be different from what Japan is currently planning to do (and some sources state South Korea as well).


Except Japan has more than two large LHDs.

I think Conan's analysis pointing toward HMAS Choules replacement as the opportunity, is a very realistic one, and his assessment of the chances of it occurring are realistic too.

But note that in the interim the ADF is about to announce the order for 12 to 16 Reapers (which will for sure be a further variation of the UK SkyGuard advanced Reaper version) in which case the forwards deployment of those, and their very long endurance, and weapons loading, can offset somewhat the foregone ISR and weapons delivery, and 5th-gen-ish linking to other weapons in other services that an F-35B may have supplied at the vital times.

So not entirely swimming naked ashore or moving the surface fleet about contested waters without some recon or firepower options and a handy maritime radar option, and potentially even ship-killing and land-attack standoff cruise weapons. Especially when combined with regional strategic sensors plus Triton, plus P-8A, plus the Romeos and their newer attack weapons, plus the Tiger Attack helicopters.

Not carrier airpower but far from lacking in vital air support measures and options if we absolutely had to get things done.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 11:23
by Corsair1963
You could make a good case for additional F-35B's for the RAAF. That is with or without adapting them to the Canberra Class LHD's. So, honestly don't see the issue.....

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 12:17
by spazsinbad
That HORN has been sounding for some time and may come true for the last TRANCHE - we will see in the fullness of time.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 14:30
by Conan
spazsinbad wrote:I have to belabor the point: Does the $13 Billion AUS include a certain number of F-35Bs with accuotrements and suitable modifications to the TWO LHDs? One can see that number is just ridiculous - perhaps it includes the THIRD aviation LHD???


Is it really that ridiculous when the capability to operate 24x Super Hornets cost us $6.6b in 2007?

You are talking up to 48x F-35B’s in two full squadrons... Then you have the ships modifications, training and infrastructure facilities, support for that many additional aircraft and so on.

Personally I think that number is conservative...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 16:10
by ricnunes
blindpilot wrote:Just a couple thoughts even tho I tend to be more USMC focused than Spanish/Australian/etc. Navy issues.

1. The Canberra Class is NOT EQ to Juan Carlos.


Well, everything that I read about the Canberras is that they are basically equal to the Juan Carlos I (namely in terms of structure).
The Canberras even have the same Sky Jump ramp as the Juan Carlos I.
The reasoning for this is apparently because it would be cheaper to build ships that are basically copies of the Juan Carlos instead of modifying the Juan Carlos base design which for example seems to be the reason why the Sky Jump was kept and this despite Australia not having plans to operate fixed-wing aircraft from those ships at the time of purchase and building.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 16:20
by ricnunes
element1loop wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Actually and like already mentioned by Spaz, it wouldn't be different from what Japan is currently planning to do (and some sources state South Korea as well).


Except Japan has more than two large LHDs.


Well, technically Japan doesn't have any LHDs.

They have four (4) Helicopter Destroyers - the Izumo and Hyūga class (2 on each class) - which doesn't carry Amphibious assets and they are basically light carriers like for example the Italian Giuseppe Garibaldi carrier, plus three (3) Tank Landing Ship or LSTs (Ōsumi-class) which only carry Amphibious assets and while having a flat deck (for helicopter operations) they don't seem to have an aviation hangar.
The Japanese are planning to operate F-35Bs from the two (2) most recent and heaviest Helicopter Destroyers, the Izumo-class.
Resuming, Japan is planning to operate the F-35B from the only two ships (and also two) of its fleet apparently capable of operating the F-35B.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 18:13
by spazsinbad
Conan wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:I have to belabor the point: Does the $13 Billion AUS include a certain number of F-35Bs with accuotrements and suitable modifications to the TWO LHDs? One can see that number is just ridiculous - perhaps it includes the THIRD aviation LHD???

Is it really that ridiculous when the capability to operate 24x Super Hornets cost us $6.6b in 2007? You are talking up to 48x F-35B’s in two full squadrons... Then you have the ships modifications, training and infrastructure facilities, support for that many additional aircraft and so on. Personally I think that number is conservative...

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

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 19:31
by spazsinbad
To refresh memories graphic attached is from: http://www.infodefensa.com/wp-content/u ... _en_v2.pdf (13.8Mb)

These are Harriers of the Spanish persuasion AV-8Bs with a graphic from an old artickle about 'R21' for the RAN with Bees.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 19:50
by blindpilot
ricnunes wrote:
blindpilot wrote:..
1. The Canberra Class is NOT EQ to Juan Carlos.


Well, everything that I read about the Canberras is that they are basically equal to the Juan Carlos I (namely in terms of structure)...

744190-mv-blue-marlin.jpg
Canberra from Spain

This is what came from Spain. Much of the internal structure unfinished, and obviously no Island superstructure, or most fittings. That includes internal space setups. Those are Australia Canberra class unique. The hull is not a ship.

I could slap a flat top on a container ship. That doesn't make it the same as the container ship.

Just saying,
MHO anyway,
BP

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 20:17
by blindpilot
ricnunes wrote:....which for example seems to be the reason why the Sky Jump was kept and this despite Australia not having plans to operate fixed-wing aircraft from those ships at the time of purchase and building.


The Ski Jump hull section was kept because it would cost more to build a new section without it, than just keep the same pieces as used before. (Actually, the Ski Jump might be one of the easier add ons to just bolt on the front of an existing flattop. see options for the Japanese. So a design change later for the ski jump is nearly trivial). That was just a cheap way to use the same metal cutting assembly tools/jigs. Why pay to make a new piece, instead of one that's already been set up in the yard. That doesn't mean all the JC equipment, space layout usage was installed in the hull. The Ski Jump decision had no mission design meaning. It was all about costs.

A 10ft by 10ft kitchen might be the same as a 10ft by 10ft bedroom in a similar framed house. But once equipped the bedroom is not a kitchen, even if the stairs come to the same door on the north side of the house, and that bedroom probably doesn't have any plumbing in it, unless I decide to run some pipes and put in a vanity sink, and it still will not be a kitchen.

MHO,
BP

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 21:39
by steve2267
Someone, Spaz(?), mentioned once the possibility of cross-decking F-35B’s on the Canberra’s as a possible contingency. Has there been any jibber jabber about when such contingency exercises might be conducted? (Does the deck or ship structure require any modifications before such exercises could be conducted?)

And while I’m asking... has there been mention of any Osprey cross-decking too?

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 22:16
by spazsinbad
blindpilot wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
blindpilot wrote:..
1. The Canberra Class is NOT EQ to Juan Carlos.

Well, everything that I read about the Canberras is that they are basically equal to the Juan Carlos I (namely in terms of structure)...

This is what came from Spain. Much of the internal structure unfinished, and obviously no Island superstructure, or most fittings. That includes internal space setups. Those are Australia Canberra class unique. The hull is not a ship...."
Just saying, MHO anyway, BP

Heheh. I'll have to dig out pics of the building of our LHDs with the INTERNAL HULL BULKHEADs etc. A ship needs bulkheads otherwise the big space will COLLAPSE, it is true the ISLAND is different according to Oz requirements. I do not believe anyone argues with that aspect. HULL HULL HULL every body cries - HULL HULL HULL is more or less the same.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 22:20
by spazsinbad
steve2267 wrote:Someone, Spaz(?), mentioned once the possibility of cross-decking F-35B’s on the Canberra’s as a possible contingency. Has there been any jibber jabber about when such contingency exercises might be conducted? (Does the deck or ship structure require any modifications before such exercises could be conducted?) And while I’m asking... has there been mention of any Osprey cross-decking too?

Spaz eh. I wish he would just SHUT UP. However an Oz LHD captain specifically mentioned (in the Oz thread probably?) that F-35Bs will NOT cross deck (LHD not ready now or in future) not even in emergency. There are pictures of an USMC Osprey onboard an Oz LHD with a few stories in the forum about testing said V-22 onboard & underneath JCI years back.

http://www.janes.com/article/62297/rimp ... -22-osprey [ERROR!!!!]
&
http://www.janes.com/article/62367/rimp ... 3e-landing [ERROR!!!!] [1 page PDF of both articles attached now PRN]

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 23:08
by spazsinbad
Reprinted (PRN) - so no links are live - 187 page PDF about RAN LHDs. These pages do not include MOST arguments about having F-35Bs onboard. Due to file size limitations of this forum THAT PDF will be uploaded soonish like. Lots of this material is already in this forum even in an old version of this PDF most likely. SEARCH is your FREND not your FIEND. :twisted:

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 00:33
by blindpilot
spazsinbad wrote:... building of our LHDs with the INTERNAL HULL BULKHEADs etc. A ship needs bulkheads otherwise the big space will COLLAPSE, it is true the ISLAND is different according to Oz requirements. I do not believe anyone argues with that aspect. ... HULL is more or less the same.


The load bearing bulkheads still do not constitute the functional setup of the ship's spaces. Take for example the LHD1/LHD8/LHA6/LHA8 variations on the "same hull." or as with the new LSDX and the LPD 17s. The hospitals get bigger and then smaller, moved up a deck, into the gyrene berths, the fuel storage out of the hangar space, boilers and steam turbines(LHD 1-7), or gas turbine/diesel electrics-CODLOG (Maikin Island/LHAs) yet the Wasp, Makin Island, America, and Bougainville really are basically the same hull.

I doubt the Canberra -Juan Carlos differences are as massive (other than island superstructure which isn't tiny) as decades of ship evolution from LHD 1 to LHA 8, but I have no problem saying Canberra is NOT EQ JC. And Juan Carlos I hasn't even begun to scope the cost of moving from Harriers to Lightnings, and that won't be "pocket change," even if it's "designed for."

I'm not saying it can't be adapted for F-35Bs, or even that it shouldn't be. I simply stated that it "is not that easy." Some of the posts here had started to make it sound like it would be. It started to sound like
"Hey it's just JC II, and that already flies F-35s! Piece of cake!"
No it's not, and they don't have F-35s yet, and don't eat that cake till it's finished baking.

As with the America Class, dock or no dock, more gas or bigger hospital. Hospital in the troop berthing? How many berths convertible? how many vehicles? Tall hangar spots? All of that has to be sorted out and it impacts concept of ops range of options.

As before I'm inclined to think perhaps they should adapt Canberra/Adelaide enough to have a cpl (2?) Bee's able to sit alert on deck, and have all else (crew, maintenance, parts, ALIS, maybe even a few pastic wrapped aircraft in a storage area) on an inexpensive aviation support ship.
1597px-SS_Wright_(T-AVB-3)_underway_at_sea_on_26_January_2007.jpg
AVB 3 Wright

As an example, USS Lewis B. Puller (ESB-3) only cost $135M, and could support 40 ships crew and a 325 person maintenance detachment plus some additional aircrew types. It has a hangar with space for 2-4 birds being wrked on. That would provide some integrated air cover, and the ability to set up a forward land base. Maybe even an emergency baby carrier capability for short term that doesn't expect heavy sortie generation.
USNS_Lewis_B._Puller_(T-ESB-3)_at_Naval_Station_Norfolk_on_20_April_2016.JPG
ESB Lewis B Puller

Just saying,
and it is just MHO,
BP

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 00:49
by spazsinbad
'BP' you can have your doubts according to history of your LHAs but if you read the PDF near beginning you will see the Oz LHDs are only changed from the deck up - in the island - in the space already available. I cannot answer for others claiming supporting F-35Bs on Oz LHDs is a 'piece of cake' - I myself have not said that for a very long time (at beginning of this long running saga not a lot was known about F-35B ops on a ship or about the F-35B or about the Oz LHDs). It was surprising that USS America had to have 'intercostal whatnames' installed but no surprise about other stuff either having to be moved or protected, similarly CVF had a few changes when better modelling about effect of F-35B exhaust was known. JCI was designed a long time before the F-35B flew, so there will be some changes for sure - not withstanding any common sense changes known well beforehand. It is sad that most of the details about Oz LHDs or changes from one country version to another are so opaque. The USN used to be very open about NavAv however now they are similarly closed along with the rest of US Armed Forces. Speculation is just that, one day we may know more, until then: (an apocryphal story perhaps?)
REMOVE SKI JUMP from LHDs
19 Oct 2012 MarkLBailey

"“Without revealing anything I should not, I was present in 2002 at Puckapunyal [ARMY training base] when the modelling was done to recommend either the Spanish or the French design. During the process, the question was asked if Treasury & Finance would provide additional funds to remove the fixed-wing capable light carrier elements of the Navantia design (ski jump, certain magazines and elevators, certain other systems, some weight and space).

The answer was an emphatic no.

All the systems were dual use. To my knowledge, none were removed or not installed. Therefore she is perfectly capable of operating something like SHAR or STOVL F-35, although undoubtedly additional kit would be needed (hence the weight and space mentioned above). The Navy guys were so delighted with the Treasury response they were too terrified even to move a muscle. It was as funny as hell to watch. Cheers: mark”

Source: http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... ugust-2012

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 00:56
by ricnunes
blindpilot wrote:This is what came from Spain. Much of the internal structure unfinished, and obviously no Island superstructure, or most fittings. That includes internal space setups. Those are Australia Canberra class unique. The hull is not a ship.

I could slap a flat top on a container ship. That doesn't make it the same as the container ship.

Just saying,
MHO anyway,
BP


No, at least not according to the following website:
http://www.hmascanberra.com/history/nushipcanberra.html

According to the page above:
The Australian Government stated that around 25 percent of the value of the project would involve work in Australia. This would be largely limited to construction of the superstructures of the two ships in Tenix's (now BAE Systems') shipyard in Williamstown, Victoria, with some systems work done in South Australia.


So that hull structure (from your photo) should be pretty much completed and previously built in Spain while the superstructure is built in Australia to be later added to hull structure.

And of course logic and common sense would mean that even if the JCI and the Canberras have somehow different superstructures then this would have a NIL/NULL effect on the Canberras ability to operate V/STOL aircraft.


blindpilot wrote:The Ski Jump hull section was kept because it would cost more to build a new section without it, than just keep the same pieces as used before. (Actually, the Ski Jump might be one of the easier add ons to just bolt on the front of an existing flattop. see options for the Japanese. So a design change later for the ski jump is nearly trivial). That was just a cheap way to use the same metal cutting assembly tools/jigs. Why pay to make a new piece, instead of one that's already been set up in the yard. That doesn't mean all the JC equipment, space layout usage was installed in the hull. The Ski Jump decision had no mission design meaning. It was all about costs.


I would say that if a "simple piece" such as the Ski Jump (as you put it) where kept for the simplicity (and as such cost) sake then the probability of all the rest belonging to the hull and inside it (hangar spaces, ramps, elevators, etc...) which in most cases would be more complex than a Ski Jump would then and also be equal between the JCI ship and the Canberra ones.


blindpilot wrote:A 10ft by 10ft kitchen might be the same as a 10ft by 10ft bedroom in a similar framed house. But once equipped the bedroom is not a kitchen, even if the stairs come to the same door on the north side of the house, and that bedroom probably doesn't have any plumbing in it, unless I decide to run some pipes and put in a vanity sink, and it still will not be a kitchen.

MHO,
BP


I fail to see the reasoning beyond your logic. IMO both the JCI and the Canberras would be "kitchens" and not one being a "kitchen" while the other being a "bedroom" but here I digress...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 01:00
by ricnunes
@spaz,

Thanks for your very informative post.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 01:03
by weasel1962
When people say its easier, its probably that the RAN doesn't have to install a ski-jump, make the hanger bigger, lengthen the ship or major mods along those lines. The Canberra's are using the same Mactaggert Scott elevators that can carry the F-35B so I don't think it means just operating Bs from the deck.

What would be helpful is if someone, not pointing at anyone and really asking posters in general, specifically to point out what exactly is the engineering issue rather than "its not that easy"? That can help to dispel the misconceptions.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 01:08
by steve2267
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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 01:27
by blindpilot
I guess I don't see right now where they could set a true (reasonably high sortie rate as Harrier carriers have done) carrier without a third ship or losing significant Amphib capability. As above the budget may only allow $150-300M for upgrades/a third ship.

And I'm just speculating along with the rest of you. What I'd love (and I bet the RAN as well) would be one of those Brit CVs, which as I mentioned on that thread "may" just be available for a couple $100M some day :D That may be more likely and happen sooner than a Canberra upgrade/Oz Bee purchase. The RAF really seems to want to make it happen :roll:

Just pondering out loud,
BP

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 01:39
by spazsinbad
IF speculation is allowed I spy with my little eye a third LHD specifically outfitted to operate F-35Bs with any amphib capability taking a back seat. Then at some point some 'minimal changes' may be made to the two initial LHDs to operate F-35Bs in an emergency. Australia is a small nation with a very large sea area to police in every sense. The SAR [search & rescue] region is just enormous and the responsibility of Australian assets. Long ago there was a maintenance ship but long gone. Do 'PULLER' F-35Bs carry out VTOs? IF going to the 'PULL the other one' trouble then why not get a 3rd AV LHD?

http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/APDC/me ... rategy.pdf (7.8Mb)
&
http://www.defence.gov.au/Publications/wpaper1987.pdf (12.7Mb)

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 01:51
by Corsair1963
Why not just a purpose built Sea Control Ship???

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 01:58
by spazsinbad
Corsair1963 wrote:Why not just a purpose built Sea Control Ship???

Not sure IF this point has been made here, in other threads or just on other forums I pester with tonnes of LHD material, however: is it not clear that having a similar LHD (albeit perhaps only slightly modified) to operate a bunch of F-35Bs and <gasp> helos will be a lot easier for the RAN to crew, operate and integrate with the present fleet of two such LHDs?

At a twist probably with minimal mods said third LHD will also be able to carry out HADR and other duties as seen fit.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 02:05
by spazsinbad
steve2267 wrote: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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 03:40
by blindpilot
spazsinbad wrote: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. :D

BP

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 04:27
by element1loop
blindpilot wrote:But I am still holding out for the Brits selling Oz the POW for a song. :D


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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 04:29
by 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


Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 05:54
by spazsinbad
189 page PDF with most of Oz RAAF F-35B on Oz RAN LHDs for & against articles is attached below. PRN = reprinted etc.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 14:22
by 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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 15:34
by Conan
ricnunes wrote: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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 16:08
by Conan
spazsinbad wrote: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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 16:40
by ricnunes
Conan wrote: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.


Conan wrote: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 :mrgreen:

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 20:06
by spazsinbad
Conan wrote:
spazsinbad wrote: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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 04:23
by 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???

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 08:20
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote: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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2018, 09:53
by weasel1962
ricnunes wrote: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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2018, 11:57
by knowan
ricnunes wrote: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.


element1loop wrote: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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2018, 13:07
by element1loop
knowan wrote:
element1loop wrote: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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2018, 14:36
by Conan
spazsinbad wrote: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.


I understand exactly what your interest is in these matters and why you’re prepared to ignore all realities of life to push this barrow.

The cost wasn’t mine though. I think it is a bit under-estimated myself. The $13b figure came from DPM&C...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2018, 14:55
by ricnunes
weasel1962 wrote: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.


Absolutely and of course I fully agree with you!
"Resources" are indeed not only money (or even raw materials) to purchase and maintain the equipment but also the crew to man and maintain the same equipment.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2018, 15:13
by Conan
ricnunes wrote: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.


The problem is that the term a ‘few’ implies that we simply buy a ‘few’ aircraft and that is it. We don’t do that. We buy a certain level of capability. Those 12 (11 for now) Growlers come with a huge amount of capability in the form of jamming pods, missiles and all sorts of things that don’t seem to be included in the ‘few’ description, yet are vital to standing up genuine capability.

And in the context of anyone besides the United States a squadron of fighter based tactical aircraft dedicated to EW/EA roles is hardly a ‘few...’ It is the ONLY fighter based EW squadron in the entire Asia Pacific region...

Then there's the "We don't have funding issues" comment of your, what you mean with this? Or really?


Absolutely. Feel free to point out a capability we have chosen to acquire that isn’t unbelievably well funded. Do we operate every possible military capability on Earth? No, of course not. That is a function of overall funding, but please feel free to show me a country in the Asia Pacific region, if not the world, that consistenly invests better in the capability level it chooses to acquire... Unlike many countries, particularly within our region, we deliberately limit our defence spending to ensure we do not increase tensions within the region.

As a quick example, we have the 13th largest GDP in the world (2017) but we don’t even make the top 20 of military spending per GDP... If we spent as others do at similar percentage levels, even you wouldn’t use the term ‘few’...

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).


Well you’ve just answered your own question there. Yes, we have a very large defence capability investment program, but unlikely many, we have one that is actually completely funded in the budget forward estimates. As for our GDP, it is small compared to the US, but as a percentage we spend much lower on defence than the USA does too. Our USD $25B - AUD $32B a year (albeit growing) defence budget is paltry compared to the US budget, but still quite large compared to our neighbours, whomwe benchmark ourselves on. However this budget does not even equal the NATO standard 2% GDP. We are and have hovered around the 1.7% mark for the last few decades. We are growing however and aim to achieve that 2% mark in 2020-2021 financial year. The growth of the budget however between 1.7% and 2.0% equals a growth from AUD $32B to a projected 20-21 budget of AUD $52.6B... I’m sure even you’ll admit that is quite an advancement in under 3 years...

So no, I don’t believe money grows on trees, unlike yourself apparently I know exactly where our defence funding comes from and more or less how much we will be spending, short of some calamity in which case our funding base will rise, not fall...

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.


I don’t remember calling you anything, but per above, it isn’t funding that is holding back the acquisition of an F-35B capability. Simply defence priorities and government will.

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 :mrgreen:


This is my last comment on this, the resources are or would be, available as already shown. The Government will is not, which I have repeatedly stated already... I do not believe we will get back into the ‘carrier business’ but it is not for a lack of ‘resources’ but rather - priorities.

My point is that if we choose to get back into the ‘carrier business’ as you call it, I do not believe for the reasons already stated we will do so by impacting upon our hard won and still developing amphibious capability. It would be new capability and achieved through new vessel/s, instead.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2018, 15:21
by ricnunes
knowan wrote: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.


Independently of how considerable is a fleet of 12 EW aircraft for an air force like the RAAF they are still "few".
And the reason why they are "few" goes IMO beyond limitation fund issues: they are a "few" because they are a "specialized" fleet. And a fleet of aircraft with "specialized tasks" roles trend to be much lower in numbers than for example a fleet of front-line fighter aircraft.
If Australia decides to purchase the F-35B then this would also be a "specialized" fleet which would be dedicated to operate from ships and here I agree with element1loop and I echo here his reasons for this. As such any F-35Bs to be purchased by Australia (if any) would always be a "few" (my 2 cents, of course).

In the end the EA-18G was only a small example about Australia buying a few of anything with another well known example being the historical F-111 which Australia bought 24 of them (again a "few"). Of course we could also argue that this was because the F-111 was also part of a "specialized" fleet (this case a "pseudo-strategical bomber") like the EA-18G is and like a tentative Australian F-35B would be.



knowan wrote:
element1loop wrote: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.


If Australia went into a conflict against China and had to deploy forces near China, this would be done together with a coalition of Allied countries such as the USA and UK and never, ever alone.
Actually and IMO it would resemble WWII where the opponent instead of being Japan it would be China.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2018, 15:36
by ricnunes
Conan wrote:So no, I don’t believe money grows on trees, unlike yourself apparently I know exactly where our defence funding comes from and more or less how much we will be spending, short of some calamity in which case our funding base will rise, not fall...


Jeez, where did I say that Australian military programs weren't funded?? :roll:

What I said was that in light of all military programs that Australia has running that it IMO (for what's worth) it doesn't have much resources left to pursue a dedicated carrier or "3rd ship" option, period! Or if you prefer the resources left will only be enough to adapt the Canberras and buy the F-35Bs (I would even stay away from the "few" word this time). Or if you prefer, the Australian government will probably spend/use the resources left on something else.
And with "resources", here I echo what weasel1962 said in his last post - resources are not only money, you know? (they also include manpower to man and maintain the equipment)

For the rest of your points, I believe I already addressed them so I won't be over there again...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2018, 21:17
by optimist
What about starting a "go fund me" page?

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2018, 22:36
by ricnunes
optimist wrote:What about starting a "go fund me" page?


LOL!

Kickstarter - Aircraft Carrier for Australia

Pledge $10 or more - Gives access to the Carrier's Hull

Pledge $20 or more - Gives access to the Carrier's Bridge

Pledge $50 or more - Gives access to the Carrier's Air Defense Systems (CIWS)

Pledge $100 or more - Gives access to the F-35B

:mrgreen:

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2018, 05:42
by spazsinbad
This 92 page PDF about SHOL Ship Helicopter Operating Limits, Dummy Decks (not 'Decks for Dummies') with hints of an LHD crew computer sim training warehouse, give one an idea of what it might take to train for F-35Bs on LHDs one day.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2018, 12:07
by Conan
One day? Okay...

I’ll see ya back here in 5 years by when there will have been precisely zero forward progress on such a capability.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2018, 13:04
by spazsinbad
Back on page three of this thread on 16 Dec 'Conan' said this (and I asked for clarification on the price - not received):
"...F-35B onto Australian ships won’t happen in any form. The Abbott led government a few years back looked into it and there was a AUD$13b price tag to be paid IF we were going to do it..." viewtopic.php?f=61&t=54736&p=407403&hilit=Abbott#p407403

On page 94 of the recent 'Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs' PDF from AviationWeak there is a story with this said about it:
"...Australia is considering establishing two F-35B squadrons, says analyst Ben Schreer of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, adding that probably 18-24 aircraft would be needed. Including modifications to the ships, the cost would exceed AUS$5 billion ($4.4 billion)…." http://awin.aviationweek.com/ArticlesSt ... 417bbfd80d OR PDF: download/file.php?id=29146 (PDF 9.2Mb - page 6 of this thread)

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2018, 13:44
by ricnunes
spazsinbad wrote:On page 94 of the recent 'Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs' PDF from AviationWeak there is a story with this said about it:
"...Australia is considering establishing two F-35B squadrons, says analyst Ben Schreer of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, adding that probably 18-24 aircraft would be needed. Including modifications to the ships, the cost would exceed AUS$5 billion ($4.4 billion)…." http://awin.aviationweek.com/ArticlesSt ... 417bbfd80d OR PDF: download/file.php?id=29146 (PDF 9.2Mb - page 6 of this thread)



Thanks for posting the above spaz.

With a planned number of aircraft (F-35B) around 18-24 aircraft you basically confirmed what I meant with a "few", a term which oddly (IMO) seems to have puzzled or even "offended" some here :mrgreen:

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2018, 14:21
by spazsinbad
Because quotes or comments about the thread title are scattered all over this F-35 forum I thought to amalgamate some:
[the articles or excerpts from articles may be found in the PDFs posted in this thread - 'against' arguments are there also]
Australia’s Maritime Strategy
Jun 2004 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade

"...Recommendation Four... 5.70 The Government is not required to commit to the purchase of the F-35 until 2006. The Government should give consideration to purchasing some short take-off and vertical landing aircraft (STOVL)....

...Conclusions...
...5.88 In the previous conclusions, the committee suggested that if the Government, in 2006, confirms the decision to purchase the F-35, it should consider purchasing some short take-off and vertical landing aircraft (STOVL). This could provide the ADF with some organic air cover while it is engaged in regional operations. It is assumed that the F-35 STOVL version will be able to meet its design specifications. The committee is aware of reports that the STOVL version is subject to weight problems....

...Recommendation 9
5.91 If in 2006 the Government confirms that it will purchase the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) then it should consider purchasing some short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35 variants for the provision of organic air cover as part of regional operations...."

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_bus ... report.pdf (0.8Mb)

&
Navy keeps very quiet while it waits for the last laugh
04 Aug 2007 Sydney Morning Herald Newspaper

"WHEN Brendan Nelson announced last month a $3 billion order for two giant amphibious landing ships, it was widely seen as a victory for the “expeditionary force” school of strategy, emphasising overseas punch for the Australian Army....

...“There’s a lot of chuckling behind the sleeves,” said Derek Woolner, an expert on defence technology at the Australian National University’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. “The joke around is Navy’s being very, very careful. They’ve got almost total discipline: no one in Navy is saying anything about Harriers.” Woolner expects the subject to come up once the air force starts getting its new F-35 aircraft. “They’ll say how about buying some V/STOL versions, they’ll be really cheap because we can get the maintenance and support done out of the RAAF fleet, they wouldn’t be like a little orphan fleet, we’d only need a few, and gee, it would add so much to our power projection. “People are fully aware of it, it’s just that the politics of the thing are such that Navy is shutting up,” Woolner said...."

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/navy-k ... 56129.html

&
Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4bn wish list
25 Mar 2008 Ian McPhedran

"THE Royal Australian Navy has produced a secret $4 billion "wish list" that includes an aircraft carrier, an extra air warfare destroyer and long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles for its submarine fleet. The RAN wants a third 26,000 tonne amphibious ship equipped with vertical takeoff jet fighters, a fourth $2 billion air warfare destroyer and cruise missiles that could strike targets thousands of kilometres away....

...Taxpayers will spend more than $11 billion to provide the RAN with the two 26,000-tonne amphibious ships and three air-warfare destroyers equipped with 48 vertical launch missiles.... The RAN wants a third ship to carry vertical take-off fighter jets....

...They [Oz LHDs] will each cost more than $1.7 billion. The fighters [F-35Bs] would cost about $100 million each. The destroyers will cost about $2 billion each, taking the total cost to more than $4 billion. Tomahawk cruise missiles cost about $1 million each and can carry a 450kg conventional or 200 kiloton nuclear warhead more than 2500km...."

Source: http://www.news.com.au/national/aircraf ... 1115876869

&
F-35B JSF for the ADF—a viable option in the 2015 White Paper? (Part 1)
30 May 2014 Malcolm Davis

“...It’s the defence of Australia principal task, which includes ensuring control of Australia’s air and maritime approaches that seems more relevant to any decision to purchase the F-35B. The 2013 Defence White Paper reinforced the importance of controlling Australia’s sea and air approaches. That requires a ‘credible force with effective capabilities for sea and air control and denial, strike and power projection’, according to the white paper, and operational demands might require the ADF to operate well beyond the combat radius of the land-based F-35A JSF. In such a scenario, a Joint Task Force would be completely dependent on the naval surface combatant’s area air defence capabilities to counter air and missile threats.

In considering acquiring the F-35B, the Joint Task Force would have an added layer of air defence, and the aircraft would provide options for the Joint Task Force Commander in terms of anti-ship and land-strike, as well as reconnaissance. In addition, such a capability could also support operations under Principal Tasks Three & Four as part of a coalition. But it’s also important to frame any debate over whether the F-35B could be a viable option for the ADF in the future by realistically considering the operational environment in which the F-35B will undertake operations....”

Source: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/f-35b- ... er-part-1/

&
F-35B JSF for the ADF—a viable option in the 2015 White Paper? (Part 2)
30 May 2014 Malcolm Davis

“...it’s becoming clear that China’s rapid military modernisation, its assertive behavior in the East and South China Sea, and the growing regional security dilemmas emerging in the form of regional military modernisation, will increase the risk of conflict in the future. In that future, the risk must be that Australia will be drawn into a regional conflict involving the United States and China.

In that scenario it’s likely that US military forces would have access to Australian military facilities in the north and west. It also seems plausible that the ADF, working alongside US air and naval forces, would be required to respond to Chinese attempts to deny US forces a sanctuary in Australia from which to conduct operations against China. That could involve Chinese forces seeking to contest Australian air and sea approaches, and launch attacks on US forces operating from Australian facilities. Based on language in the 2013 White Paper, the ADF’s response to such a challenge would be to ‘...deter attacks or coercion against Australia by demonstrating our capability to impose prohibitive costs on potential aggressors and deny them the ability to control our maritime approaches'. Furthermore, the ADF might also ‘...undertake operations against adversary’s bases and forces in transit, as far from Australia as possible. ...using strike capabilities and the sustained projection of power by joint task forces, including amphibious operations in some circumstances'....

...It’s in countering the advantages bestowed by strategic geography on an adversary practising anti-access operations where a small force of F-35Bs deployed on LHDs might play a significant role. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s key advantages are purported to be stealth, integrated avionics and an ability to network with off-board sensors—all of which contribute to the pilot in the F-35 having an information advantage over an opponent, whether that opponent is in the air, on land or on the sea. If the F-35B is seen as a key node in an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) network that contributes towards an expeditionary force gaining a know-ledge advantage at the tactical level, then a force of F-35Bs on board LHDs will add to the joint task force survivability. Information gathered by the sensor systems can be exploited by the F-35B to attack detected targets, or the F-35B can act as a sensor in a ‘sensor to shooter’ link, with the ‘shooter’ being a naval vessel or a submarine. Furthermore, the F-35B can exploit austere bases on land—known as forward arming and refuelling points (FARPs)—to operate in support of naval task forces in archipelagic waters, thus easing operational challenges and risks for the LHDs....

...Only a small number could be carried onboard the LHDs, [shades of FOUR A4Gs aboard HMAS Melbourne, 1969-72 for Air Defence of the Fleet] and at the expense of other important capabilities. But an F-35B acquisition could offer the ADF a more flexible way to undertake the Principal Tasks, even in the face of growing threats from an adversary’s anti-access ability.”

Source: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/f-35b- ... er-part-2/

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2018, 15:21
by steve2267
Does the RAN still have issues with un-marinized helos operating off the Canberra’s? Also, what about helos with manual-folding rotor blades and Chinooks that cannot fit into the Canberra hangar spaces? If so, then thay would seem to contradict conan’s assertion that Australia buys “capability” and would seem to be a bigger issue than F-35B’s — after all, if the RAN (or ADF) cannot afford a proper amphibious helo force, what’s the point of Killer Bees onboard the ships?

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2018, 20:49
by spazsinbad
The trouble with having posts scattered about over the years means much searching - so here goes....
"...For the transfer of aircraft between the hanger and the flight deck, the Juan Carlos I has two elevators, each with a capacity of 25 tonnes and sufficient size to be able to carry up to the new F-35B Lightning II, or a helicopter the size of a Chinook...." http://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfil ... pr/folleto LHD_marzo_para navantia_ingles.pdf OR viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=295254&hilit=Chinook+Australia#p295254

Blades will have to be manually folded (I guess) there is at least one photo somewhere....
"...the ADF already states that the Canberras will be able to support Romeos as well as the ground-support MRH-90, Chinook and Tiger aircraft...." http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-lh ... -response/ OR viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=287036&hilit=Chinook+Australia#p287036

Tigers also have flotation devices fitted - photo/info in the PDFs? I'll have to look..... Last pages of this PDF have the ARH Tiger flotation devices. OzLHDmaterial18dec2018pp187prn.pdf (10.7Mb) download/file.php?id=29136

Cutaway Graphic shows helos / vehickle stowage inna dinks. CHOOK blades removed: http://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfil ... pr/folleto LHD_marzo_para navantia_ingles.pdf

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2018, 21:23
by spazsinbad
This GargleSerchURL should give you plenty of images of 'lookie lookie lookie here comes chookie' aboard our LHDs:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Chinook ... wpx2nKja4M:
Foxtrot Chinooks undertake deck handling trials on board Navy LHD
23 May 2016 Australian Aviation

"The Navy’s Aircraft Maintenance and Flight Trials Unit (AMAFTU) has commenced deck handling trials with the Army’s new CH-47F Chinook heavy lift helicopters on board the LHD amphibious assault ship HMAS Canberra. Two Foxtrot Chinooks, A15-304 and -307, from C Squadron, 5 Aviation Regiment landed on board the Canberra for the first time while it was alongside at Garden Island, Sydney on May 17.

The deck handling trials are a prelude to first of class flight trials, expected to be held later this year, and checked that flightdeck markings, securing fittings, associated ground equipment, hangar arrangements and procedures are suitable for the Foxtrots when they are embarked on the LHDs.

The trials also assessed the removal of the Chinook’s six giant blades and lowering the helicopter below to the hangar deck via the LHD’s rear aircraft lift…."

Photie: https://i1.wp.com/australianaviation.co ... 38_028.jpg

Image

https://i1.wp.com/australianaviation.co ... 38_003.jpg

Image

Source: http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/0 ... -navy-lhd/

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2018, 07:43
by spazsinbad
AUSTRALIAN MARITIME OPERATIONS [real page 184 of 265 or numbered 175]
19 Sep 2017 RAN

"...Embarked Helicopters
The MRH-90 maritime support helicopter is designed to operate from ships and may be quickly prepared for flying and stowage. However, it lacks the automatically folding rotor blades which are standard features of modern maritime helicopters thus retaining a degree of personnel risk and reduced flexibility in complex flight-deck management. The Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopter was not designed for maritime operations, but its smaller size makes deck management more achievable.

The Chinook heavy lift helicopter is able to lift artillery and manage the larger troop and medical lift requirements. The Chinook may be stowed in the hangar but this requires removal of rotor blades which is a difficult activity at sea. As such the Chinook is normally stowed on deck except for deep maintenance activities. [Hope the corrosion protection is good]

[quote from e-mail]"...Takes 4-5 hours to remove/fit Chook blades, at anchor in sea state zero.... Only marinised MRH/NH-90 in service anywhere are the ISR/ASW birds in Royal Norwegian Navy, which were a mere 11 years late... ARMY wanted a marinised 'Mike' variant Blackhawk..."


AFLOAT SUPPORT FORCE
The Afloat Support Force enables the Fleet to operate with more flexibility and at greater range from their operating ports, by increasing time at sea and reducing dependence on port visits to obtain the necessary logistic support.... [MUCH MORE AT THE JUMP]

Source: http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/fi ... s_2017.pdf (25Mb)

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2018, 08:19
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2018, 15:34
by Conan
steve2267 wrote:Does the RAN still have issues with un-marinized helos operating off the Canberra’s? Also, what about helos with manual-folding rotor blades and Chinooks that cannot fit into the Canberra hangar spaces? If so, then thay would seem to contradict conan’s assertion that Australia buys “capability” and would seem to be a bigger issue than F-35B’s — after all, if the RAN (or ADF) cannot afford a proper amphibious helo force, what’s the point of Killer Bees onboard the ships?


Depends on your definition of ‘issue’. Moving aircraft around a ship at sea always presents ‘issues’ it is how they are managed that is the question. Are our helicopters (MH-60R aside) ‘properly’ marinised at present? No, but such ‘issues’ can be managed with improved wash procedures and servicing, there is simply a logistical and financial cost in doing so. Corrosion is increased and effective lifespan of the platforms is shortened. The Chinook fits into the hangar space without issue as far as I am aware, however requires the removal of it’s blades to do so. That is a capability choice.

These issues do not contradict my earlier assertion that we buy capability, rather than the ‘few’ platforms referred to by others. ADF acquires capability at a level directed by Government. I never said that we acquire the absolute best capability in every category, rather the capability we do buy is fully funded and always to a very high degree. The LHD’s being the 2 biggest ships RAN has ever had is further evidence of this. The fact we aren’t flying squadrons worth of fully marinised aircraft off the LHD’s to cover all likely roles, should give a relative idea of the likelihood of dedicated fixed wing aircraft flying off them...

My issue is with the implication we buy a ‘few’ of something as if the numbers of any particular platform is relevant to our decision making, is that it suggests we purchase only these ‘few’ platforms, rather than a level of overall capability. There will never be any F-35B’s in ADF service without appropriate ship modification, training and support assets, munitions, fuel and spares inventories and people to fly, instruct and maintain them. That is what I mean by ‘capability’. It is not always the case with countries that buy a ‘few’ platforms...

Indonesia as a typical example buys a ‘few’. It’s recent purchase of 11x SU-35’s comes with ZERO weapons, targetting pods, spares and so on as a relevant example. They openly state they hope to purchase such things at future dates when economic circumstances allow. The TNI-AU face severe budgetary issues and accordingly have little choice. So they invest in a few platforms.

We don’t. We buy the number of platforms AND all the required support, training and maintenance assets we need to provide a directed level of capability. Does this make us special as someone asked? Somewhat. We fund and do what we say we’re going to. Not everyone does. But we aren’t at the present time funding pie in the sky capability wishes...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2018, 15:52
by Conan
Only $4b eh, Spaz? 24x F-35B’s, a new AWD, a new fleet of Tomahawk cruise missiles and modifications to the LHD’s, for a mere $4b? No wonder you think it so likely...

I’m on-board, skip! Sign me up!

But please don’t look at the real cost of anything, ala 24x Super Hornets at $6.6b, the existing AWD’s at $3b each, etc...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2018, 17:14
by spazsinbad
Hang on, you 'Conan' quote big numbers without any qualification, whereas I'm getting numbers from sources - credible or not. You like to be sarcastic and I like to give as much detail as possible giving the sources of such detail. How about you?

https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/g/files/n ... No%205.pdf (3.21Mb) Then from:
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Roo ... C_2011.pdf [not there now] with: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6036923907
page four this thread Conan said: "...Is it really that ridiculous when the capability to operate 24x Super Hornets cost us $6.6b in 2007? …" viewtopic.php?f=61&t=54736&p=407457&hilit=operate#p407457

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2018, 08:30
by spazsinbad
'ricnunes' said on page 6 this thread: "...maybe Santa and the Reindeers could bring one for Christmas :mrgreen: " SANTA missed the boat - wrong call - high all the way (space shuttle glideslope) - BOLTER BOLTER BOLTER & BACON & vixen.... :roll: :devil:

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=54736&p=407553&hilit=Santa#p407553

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2018, 19:13
by ricnunes
Too high for lineup!
Wave off - wave off!

LOL :mrgreen:

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2018, 21:06
by quicksilver
ric, 'lineup' is right/left vice high/low. However, as both you and spaz suggest, he's very high -- as in 'too high for a safe approach' and the likely recipient of an early WO (depending on his history around the ship).

Historically, high starts make LSOs a little twitchy. When combined with the performance of previous generation aircraft (i.e. pre-Hornet) they were often the entryway to an OC LOIM-AR taxi one-wire (overcorrect low in the middle to at the ramp, barely missed the round-down; i.e. an unsafe approach). In some tragic instances, a ramp strike instead of the one-wire.

Precision modes in SH and 'C' will -- all but (an important qualifier) -- eliminate such things.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2018, 21:47
by ricnunes
Roger that quicksilver, I stand corrected :wink:

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2018, 22:10
by spazsinbad
One very dark and not stormy but windy night during my second ever night carrier approach in an A4G (first one was roller/hook up and 'high all the way') with hook up again started high (off a CCA Carrier Controlled Approach) to.....

High All The Way Rampstrike Animation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJIrbR1JdB4


Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2018, 07:09
by spazsinbad
Meatball LineUp & Optimum AoA/ Airspeed USN Training 1960-70s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohqH1k6MjTo


Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2018, 14:03
by Conan
spazsinbad wrote:Hang on, you 'Conan' quote big numbers without any qualification, whereas I'm getting numbers from sources - credible or not. You like to be sarcastic and I like to give as much detail as possible giving the sources of such detail. How about you?

https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/g/files/n ... No%205.pdf (3.21Mb) Then from:
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Roo ... C_2011.pdf [not there now] with: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6036923907
page four this thread Conan said: "...Is it really that ridiculous when the capability to operate 24x Super Hornets cost us $6.6b in 2007? …" viewtopic.php?f=61&t=54736&p=407457&hilit=operate#p407457


You quote ‘The Australian’ and then want to argue you use ‘credible’ sources? Lol.

Want a credible source on my $6.6b that isn’t ‘The Australian’? Fine.

http://www.defence.gov.au/AnnualReports ... _v2_s2.pdf

Check under new projects... You’ve fallen into the trap that most do. Acquisition cost is usually but a small part of capability. Sustainment costs more...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2018, 21:16
by spazsinbad
At last we have details of your numbers, still more to come [LHD?] - but 'over thirteen years' by gee by golly who'da thunk?
Defence Annual Report 2006-07 Volume 2 - Defence Materiel Organisation Section Two Report on Performance
01 Nov 2007 DMO

"...Bridging Air Combat Capability AIR 5349 Phase 1
– 54.9 This project provides for the establishment of a bridging air combat strike capability. Twenty‑four Boeing F/A‑18F Block II Super Hornet aircraft will be acquired to give the ADF a bridging air combat capability...." page numbered 53 or physical page 36 of 76
&
AIR 5349 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet
The F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet has been accepted as an accelerated acquisition project. Table 3.32 provides details of project expenditure.
Table 3.32—Project expenditure: AIR 5349
Approved project expenditure ($m) 3,984
Cumulative expenditure to 30 June 2007 ($m) 54.9
2006–07 actual expenditure ($m) 54.9

The project will acquire 24 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet [ http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/lsp/fa18F ... hornet.cfm
{computer says NO} ] multi-role aircraft to ensure that Australia’s air combat capability edge is maintained through the transition to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter during the coming decade. Second pass approval was achieved in March 2007. Defence has established an FMS contract with the US Navy, valued at approximately A$2.9b, for the acquisition of 24 US Navy common F/A-18F Block II Super Hornets and associated support systems. Additional cases will be established in 2007–08 for weapons acquisition and sustainment of the aircraft. Local industry involvement will be a key factor in developing the through-life support concepts for the Super Hornets. The total program investment is approximately $6.6b over 13 years, which includes acquisition and all support costs, as well as personnel...." page numbered 62 or physical page 45 of 76

Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/AnnualReports ... _v2_s2.pdf (6.4Mb)

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2018, 16:57
by mixelflick
This is more great news for LM. Japan ordering 100 more, the Aussie's contemplating additional F-35B's. Israel and the US successfully using them in combat... The F-35 really is maturing fast, and all signs point to additional as the glowing reports continue to come in.

I'm not sure Australia needs an aircraft carrier, but the fact she's contemplating one speaks volumes. One thing is for sure: If it comes to pass, they'll do it the right way. Nice to know we have an ally as strong as Australia, particularly in that part of the world...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2018, 23:47
by optimist
spazsinbad wrote:At last we have details of your numbers, still more to come [LHD?] - but 'over thirteen years' by gee by golly who'da thunk?

The only reason the cost was given in 13 years is because that was the expected life of the aircraft. Aussies do generally cost an all up price.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 01:07
by spazsinbad
That may be the case however I PROTEST that that detail (13 years etc. all up including PERSONNEL) should have been revealed from the getgo. Notice how I QUOTED official sources myself but JUST FOR THE AIRCRAFT as most quotes for aircraft are quoted around here. IF there is a change from that standard IT SHOULD BE REVEALED - CaPicHE? Comprende?

With unbated breath I'm awaiting the fifty year ALL UP COST INCLUDING Personnel and all the other flotsam and Jetsam for the LHDs and then and then ….. the all up WhenEVERs for a certain number of F-35Bs with all their etc and etcs. :doh:

Don't tell me this is the way Oz does it when Oz also provides prices for aircraft with their bits as required and I quoted.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 01:14
by weasel1962
The RAAF would have done their budget for the AUP of the F-35A incl pilots etc which has already been approved. The F-35B is really incremental cost. Mostly front loaded i.e. upfront with minimal difference in annual sustainment cost.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 01:32
by spazsinbad
I appreciate the knowledge/detail input however it must be clear 'what is what' etc. Otherwise a NUMBER without any detail is worthless (to me anyway). :roll: Really if one asks the price then one cannot afford it. :mrgreen: Sure it is all just speculation at moment and I personally am pissed that more detail about what needs to happen to our LHDs to operate (even in emergency) an F-35B would be well appreciated. Without such detail we go around in circles eh. <sigh>

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 04:24
by weasel1962
Agreed, but I suspect politics is at play. If the RAN/RAAF came up to say that the whole LHD upgrade amounts to a princely A$100m, then there will be a lot more push towards B. Much easier not to say anything. No details = no debate.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 05:24
by optimist
I don't know why it's so hard to accept that ADF will not buy a f-35b to put on the 2 existing 2 LHDs. They are both fully committed. If they do go for a naval wing, it will be with new ships, probably 2 flat tops, so there is always one available and everything else that is needed. I can't see them having just the 3 LHDs and setting all 3 to do both missions. It's not hard to see the problems that countries with one carrier have. National pride and mostly operationally irrelevant.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 06:42
by spazsinbad
Thank goodness your opinion is just that. As far as I'm concerned my attempt is to find out what it will take to have ANY F-35Bs onboard our LHDs given the very negative responses without much supporting detail except 'opinions'. I'm patient.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 07:00
by weasel1962
Back to 101. 122 aircraft carriers out of 151 CV built in the US during ww2 were escort carriers. Thats not counting CVE built by the British empire plus the CAM ships. Since ww2, there have been little operational need for escort carriers because the threat was not significant until the cold war when the concept of sea control ships came up. In the US, the existing LHDs already inducted this concept by having VTOL/STOVL fighters onboard.

It was only in '82 that the UK re-demonstrated the utility of the light carrier concept but 36 years on, clearly all those lessons have passed a generation.

Whilst not used, it doesn't mean the conops is irrelevant. if one recognises the threat, one can understand its utility. That's why Japan has decided to adopt it. That's why Italy and Spain kept the capability. That's why Korea is looking at it. That's also why a segment of Australians have pushed for it.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 16:13
by ricnunes
optimist wrote:I don't know why it's so hard to accept that ADF will not buy a f-35b to put on the 2 existing 2 LHDs.


Please don't get me wrong but while I agree with many of your posts in this forum, I must disagree with you on this point.
Anyway, I believe it is clear that the reason "why it's so hard to accept that ADF will not buy a f-35b to put on the 2 existing 2 LHDs" is the following:
- Resources, or to be more precise the lack of it (resources) which makes the option of putting the "F-35Bs on the current two LHDs" the only possible option for Australia if it wants to pursue something akin to a "fixed-wing carrier capability".

IMO, I would say that I don't know why it's so hard to accept that Australia won't have necessary resources (includes money for acquisition and maintenance of the equipment, human resources to man and maintain the equipment, etc...) and I already posted the reason why I believe in this, so I won't repeat myself again in this regard.

Again, I would say that the only possibility for the Australians to have something that resembles a carrier or carrier capability would be exactly to buy F-35Bs and put them on the two (2) existing LHDs (so my opinion is exactly the opposite of yours in this regard) since it would be the option that requires less resources and this not only in terms of money (to adquire, modify and maintain equipment) but also and above all it's the option that requires by far less human resources - note that the Australian Navy is already having a hard time to crew/man its existing ships/fleet let alone to man an extra carrier or even worse, a couple of extra carriers.

You could argue that Australia would prefer not having a carrier capability at all than adapting its current LHDs to operate with F-35Bs and you could probably be right.
However the probability of Australia buying an extra carrier, let alone two extra carriers are much, much lower than the previous two options (equipping the 2 current LHDs with F-35Bs or not having F-35Bs at all).
I would speculate that:
- Probability for Australia not buying any F-35Bs and thus continuing to have no carrier capability whatsoever -> 69% (not so sexy option, I admit :mrgreen: )
- Probability for Australia buying the F-35B and adapting the current 2 Canberra-class LHD to operate the F-35B -> 25%
- Probability for Australia buying the F-35B and buying a "3rd ship/carrier" to operate the F-35B -> 5%
- Probability for Australia buying the F-35B and buying two (2) carriers to operate the F-35B -> 1%

But again this is only my speculation and my 2 cents, of course... :wink:

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 20:14
by spazsinbad
'ricnunes' said: "...note that the Australian Navy is already having a hard time to crew/man its existing ships/ fleet...". Do you have a recent article claiming this 'fact'? Thanks.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2018, 23:35
by ricnunes
To be honest with you, my reference was a post by weasel1962 on page 6 which I'll partially re-quote below:

weasel1962 wrote: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.


I imagine that weasel1962 should have a good source for such a specific issue.
Personally I find it very believable because this is an issue which seems to be affecting a big number, if not the majority of first-world, developed and "western" countries on the world today and as such this is certainly not exclusive to Australia for that matter.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 00:20
by spazsinbad
Without checking 'the facts' that 'crewing the Collins Subs Problem' was some years ago when the mining boom in WA was going well. That boom has gone with measures to retain sub crews (in WA) now going well with bonuses and NO BOOM!

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 01:19
by southernphantom
spazsinbad wrote:Without checking 'the facts' that 'crewing the Collins Subs Problem' was some years ago when the mining boom in WA was going well. That boom has gone with measures to retain sub crews (in WA) now going well with bonuses and NO BOOM!


I can confirm that mining is very much a boom/bust business. There may also be some overlap between individuals with a suitable temperament to crew a sub, and those with a suitable temperament to work entirely underground. There are similarities between the two.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 09:04
by spazsinbad
A recent 20 Jun 2018 ADF recruitment story & I'm aware there are lies, damn lies and statistics: https://www.afr.com/news/special-report ... 619-h11lad

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 10:35
by optimist
ricnunes wrote:
optimist wrote:I don't know why it's so hard to accept that ADF will not buy a f-35b to put on the 2 existing 2 LHDs.


Please don't get me wrong but while I agree with many of your posts in this forum, I must disagree with you on this point.
Anyway, I believe it is clear that the reason "why it's so hard to accept that ADF will not buy a f-35b to put on the 2 existing 2 LHDs" is the following:
- Resources, or to be more precise the lack of it (resources) which makes the option of putting the "F-35Bs on the current two LHDs" the only possible option for Australia if it wants to pursue something akin to a "fixed-wing carrier capability".

IMO, I would say that I don't know why it's so hard to accept that Australia won't have necessary resources (includes money for acquisition and maintenance of the equipment, human resources to man and maintain the equipment, etc...) and I already posted the reason why I believe in this, so I won't repeat myself again in this regard.

Again, I would say that the only possibility for the Australians to have something that resembles a carrier or carrier capability would be exactly to buy F-35Bs and put them on the two (2) existing LHDs (so my opinion is exactly the opposite of yours in this regard) since it would be the option that requires less resources and this not only in terms of money (to adquire, modify and maintain equipment) but also and above all it's the option that requires by far less human resources - note that the Australian Navy is already having a hard time to crew/man its existing ships/fleet let alone to man an extra carrier or even worse, a couple of extra carriers.

You could argue that Australia would prefer not having a carrier capability at all than adapting its current LHDs to operate with F-35Bs and you could probably be right.
However the probability of Australia buying an extra carrier, let alone two extra carriers are much, much lower than the previous two options (equipping the 2 current LHDs with F-35Bs or not having F-35Bs at all).
I would speculate that:
- Probability for Australia not buying any F-35Bs and thus continuing to have no carrier capability whatsoever -> 69% (not so sexy option, I admit :mrgreen: )
- Probability for Australia buying the F-35B and adapting the current 2 Canberra-class LHD to operate the F-35B -> 25%
- Probability for Australia buying the F-35B and buying a "3rd ship/carrier" to operate the F-35B -> 5%
- Probability for Australia buying the F-35B and buying two (2) carriers to operate the F-35B -> 1%

But again this is only my speculation and my 2 cents, of course... :wink:

The ADF were offered f-35b from a former PM. They only had to say yes. They said no and the matter hasn't been revisited by ADF or the politicians.
I would say if anything were to happen. There was more of a chance of another flat top or two, than putting f-35b on the existing ships. There is the remote possibility of a few V-22, or its replacement getting a spot as a strike asset. Though again I doubt this will happen either. At this point i would guess if needed, there would probably be a joint USMC action using theirs

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 10:51
by spazsinbad
NOW you are writing a revisionist history: "...The ADF were offered f-35b from a former PM...." Tony Abbott did no such thing - how can a PM 'offer' F-35Bs? A good summary of what was said/asked by PM with other references if required:
White Paper to consider F-35Bs for LHDs – report
23 May 2014 australianaviation.com.au

“Prime Minister Tony Abbott has instructed the authors of the new Defence White Paper currently in preparation to consider the acquisition of the STOVL F-35B variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to operate from the Navy’s forthcoming LHD amphibious ships. “It is understood Mr Abbott has instructed planners working on his defence white paper to examine the possibility of putting a squadron of 12 of the short takeoff and vertical landing version of the JSFs — the F-35B — on to the ships,” a report in The Australian newspaper on Friday says...."

Source: http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/0 ... ds-report/

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 12:23
by optimist
Nothing revisionist about it. They were offered and declined. More to the point, Abbot was amped up on getting them, he thought it was a brilliant idea. He was doused with a bucket of cold water to settle him down.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 12:36
by Conan
spazsinbad wrote:That may be the case however I PROTEST that that detail (13 years etc. all up including PERSONNEL) should have been revealed from the getgo. Notice how I QUOTED official sources myself but JUST FOR THE AIRCRAFT as most quotes for aircraft are quoted around here. IF there is a change from that standard IT SHOULD BE REVEALED - CaPicHE? Comprende?

With unbated breath I'm awaiting the fifty year ALL UP COST INCLUDING Personnel and all the other flotsam and Jetsam for the LHDs and then and then ….. the all up WhenEVERs for a certain number of F-35Bs with all their etc and etcs. :doh:

Don't tell me this is the way Oz does it when Oz also provides prices for aircraft with their bits as required and I quoted.


The Super Hornets were different as they were a bridging capability acquisition, not a permanent capability so things were done differently. All sustainment contracts are announced publicly for all of those capabilities you named so you can work such things out if feel the need, but the Supers were initially only intended from 2007 to 2020 so the whole shebang, down to the cost of the fuel they would use was announced.

There would be no difference with an F-35B capability, except I would argue that though the plane may not be much more expensive, the ‘capability’ would be. We wouldn’t get away with a squadron plus capability (the mythical 28 aircraft figure) of F-35B for less than $6.6B and any thought we would is pointless wish-making.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 12:39
by Conan
spazsinbad wrote:Thank goodness your opinion is just that. As far as I'm concerned my attempt is to find out what it will take to have ANY F-35Bs onboard our LHDs given the very negative responses without much supporting detail except 'opinions'. I'm patient.


And where do you think that ‘detail’ will come from, except from the ADF?

(Except in reality it won’t because there is NO push to get a ‘carrier’ capability in-service, even from within Defence so no work will be done on what it would actually take).

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 12:50
by Conan
optimist wrote:The ADF were offered f-35b from a former PM. They only had to say yes. They said no and the matter hasn't been revisited by ADF or the politicians.
I would say if anything were to happen. There was more of a chance of another flat top or two, than putting f-35b on the existing ships. There is the remote possibility of a few V-22, or its replacement getting a spot as a strike asset. Though again I doubt this will happen either. At this point i would guess if needed, there would probably be a joint USMC action using theirs


There is an infinitely greater chance of V-22 happening for Australia. For starters we at least have a fully funded special forces support and aerial combat search and rescue capability project that is included within the DWP 2016, IIP...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 14:35
by optimist
Conan wrote:
optimist wrote:The ADF were offered f-35b from a former PM. They only had to say yes. They said no and the matter hasn't been revisited by ADF or the politicians.
I would say if anything were to happen. There was more of a chance of another flat top or two, than putting f-35b on the existing ships. There is the remote possibility of a few V-22, or its replacement getting a spot as a strike asset. Though again I doubt this will happen either. At this point i would guess if needed, there would probably be a joint USMC action using theirs


There is an infinitely greater chance of V-22 happening for Australia. For starters we at least have a fully funded special forces support and aerial combat search and rescue capability project that is included within the DWP 2016, IIP...

There is an infinite grater chance. Alas in the big picture, I see it as a small one. There is a current $3B tender for a special ops chopper

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 14:50
by aussiebloke
optimist wrote: There is a current $3B tender for a special ops chopper


An RFI has just gone out:
"The helicopters are to be proven (already in service) Commercial or Military off the shelf, optimised for operating in dense urban environments, and capable of being rapidly deployed by air transport in ADF Boeing C-17A Globemaster III aircraft. The helicopter should be capable of being fitted with simple, proven, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) equipment and weapons systems.
The project is currently in an exploratory phase, collecting information and proposals to inform concepts for capability realisation. The project is considering a wide range of procurement options based around a light helicopter as the major system."
https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=publi ... CB64522CFD

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 15:05
by ricnunes
optimist wrote:The ADF were offered f-35b from a former PM. They only had to say yes. They said no and the matter hasn't been revisited by ADF or the politicians.


Thanks for the information (and I also thank spaz for the supporting article).

However note that such "no decisions" can and are sometimes reverted (but not often I admit). A very well known (worldwide) example of this was the B-1 Bomber program in the USA.

Moreover, the reason for the "no" (to Australian F-35Bs operating from its LHDs) may not have anything to do with the ability or not for the F-35B to operate from the Australian LHDs (because they can period.) or that operating F-35Bs from the same Australian LHDs will reduce any amphibious capability (Spain uses this capability on its sole ship and Australia even has two of these ships). IMO, this is simply due to the fact that the ADF simply doesn't see or has the need to operate a "F-35B carrier" (whatever this option might end up being) and prefers to spend money on something else (on other systems).

Now, IF the ADF "suddenly" decides to have a "F-35B carrier capability" then several options will be presented at the table including the return of the "F-35Bs operating from the two current LHDs" option but then again, this is a big IF.


optimist wrote:
Conan wrote:There is an infinitely greater chance of V-22 happening for Australia. For starters we at least have a fully funded special forces support and aerial combat search and rescue capability project that is included within the DWP 2016, IIP...

There is an infinite grater chance. Alas in the big picture, I see it as a small one. There is a current $3B tender for a special ops chopper


Here I agree with you optimist. The probability of Australia getting the V-22 will be very, very small.
On top of that $3B tender for a spec ops helicopter which is for a small helicopter - see aussiebloke post plus the link that I'll share below - there's also an ongoing program to replace the current Tiger gunship helicopter fleet, isn't it?

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/20 ... licopters/

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 15:56
by optimist
We aren't doing a MLU and are scrapping them. We didn't get the apache that we wanted because it was a full import without any benefit. Where as the EU had a local assembly etc. What will be funny is if we get the apache this time.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2018, 06:10
by Conan
optimist wrote:
Conan wrote:
optimist wrote:The ADF were offered f-35b from a former PM. They only had to say yes. They said no and the matter hasn't been revisited by ADF or the politicians.
I would say if anything were to happen. There was more of a chance of another flat top or two, than putting f-35b on the existing ships. There is the remote possibility of a few V-22, or its replacement getting a spot as a strike asset. Though again I doubt this will happen either. At this point i would guess if needed, there would probably be a joint USMC action using theirs


There is an infinitely greater chance of V-22 happening for Australia. For starters we at least have a fully funded special forces support and aerial combat search and rescue capability project that is included within the DWP 2016, IIP...

There is an infinite grater chance. Alas in the big picture, I see it as a small one. There is a current $3B tender for a special ops chopper


The Long Ranged CSAR project has nothing to do with the deployable Special Forces helicopter capability, other than they will both be aviation based assets and will work closely with SOCOMD-Aust / RAAF 4 Sqn STS.

CSAR will be V-22 or Extended Range CH-47F + MC/C-130J based.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2018, 08:35
by weasel1962
I think current CSAR capabilities are just leveraging on existing assets, not dedicated. If so, then the justification for V-22s would be dependent on other functions rather than CSAR.

Am given to understand specops helo has to be C-17 deployable.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2018, 13:04
by aussiebloke
Conan wrote:There is an infinitely greater chance of V-22 happening for Australia. For starters we at least have a fully funded special forces support and aerial combat search and rescue capability project that is included within the DWP 2016, IIP...


There is no such "fully funded" project. The 2016 Integrated Investment Program report that accompanied the Defence White Paper merely states in an introductory Overview section :

30 The Canberra Class amphibious ships can also provide substantial support for sea lift as a secondary role.

31 Enhancements in this capability stream to support the future force include:
...........
...........
considering a future long-range aero-medical evacuation and combat search and rescue capability 9see page 17)

Further on in the detailed section of the report (page 67) a similar statement appears:
In the longer-term, consideration will be given to acquiring a long-range, aero-medical evacuation and combat search and rescue capability.

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/do ... ec50a75%22

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2018, 13:48
by Conan
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..

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2018, 16:21
by ricnunes
optimist wrote:We aren't doing a MLU and are scrapping them. We didn't get the apache that we wanted because it was a full import without any benefit. Where as the EU had a local assembly etc. What will be funny is if we get the apache this time.


I'll probably would call it "ironic" instead of "funny" but then again, this would be playing with semantics :mrgreen:

Anyway, what's important is that in the end you get the best capability which the Apache certainly seems to be, all of this despite of what was already expended (wasted is the proper word here) with that flopped Tiger helicopter program.
At least someone between or within the Australian Defense Forces, Defense Department or Government was capable of admitting a wrong decision and make it right, this in case the Apache ends up being selected.

This would be quite different from Canada with for example its Maritime Helicopter Project (to replace the old Sea King Helicopters) in which a replacement (EH-101) was selected in the early 1990's but was cancelled just afterwards (this when the Sea Kings were already OLD) only to be restarted in the early 2000's where one of the two finalists was exactly the same EH-101 that was rejected a decade earlier. But since who made the decision to finally purchase the Sea King replacement (in the early 2000's) was the government of the same party (Liberals) who cancelled this project in the early 1990's, this same government instead of acknowledging that it screwed up and selected the best choice which was again the EH-101, it decided to purchase the S-92 - which wasn't a Maritime/ASW helicopter as opposed to the EH-101 - which forced Canada to finance the development of what basically is a completely new variant of the S-92 helicopter (which again didn't exist) and which even today still doesn't have most of its intended capabilities (namely in terms of ASW), but here I'm digressing... :wink:

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2018, 18:42
by aussiebloke
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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2018, 20:02
by spazsinbad
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/

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2018, 23:56
by ricnunes
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:

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 02:49
by Conan
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...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 16:18
by aussiebloke
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

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 02:12
by weasel1962
The RAAF 2017-2027 air force strategy is the product of that white paper. Its downloadable to see what is in and out.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2019, 18:10
by spazsinbad
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/

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2019, 18:35
by quicksilver
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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2019, 03:32
by optimist
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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2019, 05:15
by spazsinbad
YOU can google your wiki info for what it is worth. Otherwise guess away - giving your opinions - for what they are worth.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2019, 08:59
by weasel1962
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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2019, 10:46
by spazsinbad
: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)

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 07:07
by spazsinbad
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/

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 08:02
by Corsair1963
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...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 22:33
by ricnunes
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:

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 00:56
by weasel1962
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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 01:07
by Corsair1963
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.....

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 02:06
by Conan
weasel1962 wrote: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.


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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 02:08
by Conan
Corsair1963 wrote: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...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 04:24
by optimist
Conan wrote: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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 04:48
by 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)

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 05:03
by Corsair1963
Conan wrote:
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.... :roll:

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 05:03
by weasel1962
Conan wrote: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).

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 05:05
by Corsair1963
Well, said and supported.... :D

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 05:14
by 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)

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 05:14
by optimist
spazsinbad wrote: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

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 05:23
by spazsinbad
optimist wrote:
spazsinbad wrote: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….

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 06:04
by 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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 06:25
by spazsinbad
I don't think I needed an accounting lesson but that was interesting nevertheless. My point remains: TAHDAH! Shornets!

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 10:45
by ricnunes
spazsinbad wrote::shock: I'm not a WALLABY - I'm a WANNABE! 8)


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

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 10:48
by spazsinbad
ricnunes wrote:
spazsinbad wrote::shock: I'm not a WALLABY - I'm a WANNABE! 8)


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

Eats Roots Shoots & Leaves....

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 10:58
by ricnunes
LoL :mrgreen:

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 13:11
by 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


Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 15:02
by 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...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 15:47
by Conan
weasel1962 wrote:
Conan wrote: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

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 15:50
by Conan
Corsair1963 wrote:
Conan wrote:
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.... :roll:


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

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 20:17
by spazsinbad
mixelflick wrote: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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2019, 01:30
by 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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2019, 14:52
by Conan
element1loop wrote: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...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2019, 15:58
by element1loop
Throw another lamb chop on the BBQ, she'll be right.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 21:26
by 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/

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 02:41
by 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

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 03:55
by 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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 04:11
by 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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 04:29
by spazsinbad
I did not realise you were so sensitive SteveBoyWonder. :doh: 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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 04:55
by 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...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 05:02
by 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"

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 13:10
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote: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"


I hope they do. Here's why...

It's pretty apparent that AUS runs one of the most (if not THE most) professional and capable air arms in the neighborhood. As such, any large scale threat to their neck of the woods is going to largely fall on them. .Chinese ambitions likely don't include AUS in the short term, but in the longer term anything is possible, and that's what you need to plan for. A carrier capable force for a country surrounded by water (to me) is a no brainer, and the very real threat of Chinese subs firing cruise missiles at AUS airfields/cities is certainly a possibility, so any anti-sub helicopters will need protection, especially from Chinese aircraft carriers and J-15's (or whatever comes next).

For without the F-35B, those subs (with J-15's covering for them) will operate with impunity. Not going to be pretty when Chinese AAM's start raining down on defenseless AUS anti-sub helicopters and P-8's (if memory serves, they have a few)..

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 04:20
by spazsinbad
Another look by ASPI writer 'bout Bees on LHDs - certainly down under we have to THUNK DUFFERENT or embarrassment.
The F-35B won’t solve Australia’s defence dilemmas
12 Feb 2019 Ewen Levick

"In a recent Strategist article, Malcolm Davis asked an interesting question: should Australia take a cue from Japan and deploy F-35Bs (the short take-off and vertical landing variant of the joint strike fighter) at sea?

The debate is complex. The argument against rests on the significant cost burdens associated with converting the navy’s existing landing helicopter docks to accommodate the F-35Bs or acquiring a new one (although this point has been disputed) [ https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/lhd-a ... -opens-up/ ]. There’s also, as Davis explains, a serious question about the survivability of large surface vessels in a war involving anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles (a point that transcends the F-35B issue).

The argument for, on the other hand, rests on the aircraft’s potential as an enabler of a ‘system of systems’. In an operational context, that means participating in a common multi-spectrum sensor network that allows any platform to engage a target outside its line of sight, speeding up the observe–orient–decide–act loop and cementing decision superiority. That would make the aircraft a significant force multiplier for both the navy and the amphibious force it is built to deploy.

From a strategic point of view, adding a small aircraft carrier to the ADF’s capabilities would enable Australia to project force well beyond the limits of land-based aircraft. Overall, it seems the idea has traction. Davis argues that, ‘If the money is made available, a third LHD with a wing of between 12 and 16 F-35Bs, supported by a larger fleet of destroyers and frigates, is an option that should be on the agenda in any force structure debate.’...

...If the F-35B is on the agenda to improve our force-projection capabilities in the Indo-Pacific, then the agenda must also include an organisational structure that can better compete left of launch [explained in article]. Otherwise, the aircraft will deploy into an environment shaped by the adversary."

Source: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-f ... -dilemmas/

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 04:33
by Corsair1963
Honestly, don't see a case for a dedicated F-35B Aircraft Carrier for the RAN. Yet, I do see the benefit of acquiring a modest number of F-35B's. Which, could operate from either the Canberra Class of LPD's or from forward austere airfields. As the ADF dictates....


If, the critics can't see that. Then they're blind....... :doh:

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 05:13
by optimist
The critics are the ADF and all the blog posts in the world linked here, won't change that.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 06:56
by spazsinbad
I'm curious to know how you know 'critics are the ADF'? Does the ADF have a HIVE MIND? How do you know this 'optimist'.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 08:34
by optimist
ADF don't want the f-35b, end of story. They gave a report saying as such, look up what is published.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 08:36
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote:If, the critics can't see that. Then they're blind....... :doh:


I'm wondering if a development of something like the GA Avenger UCAV couldn't get us an escort capability, strike capability and ISR, with speed, long-legs and loiter from northern basing, with ocean Island support, if not KC-30A support.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 09:13
by spazsinbad
optimist wrote:ADF don't want the f-35b, end of story. They gave a report saying as such, look up what is published.

So where is this mythical report? Only one newspaper quote that such a report exists but nothing else - SAY WUT? You look it up and report back - thanks. YATO you are the one making this claim about the report so YFI - YOU FIND IT. Clear?

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 09:24
by optimist
There is sufficient on google. Obviously nothing I say, or the defence professionals at Defence Talk means anything to you. Nor any of the threads that have been locked on more than one site. You have a wish with the f-35b that you can't let go.
Contact some old buddies you trust and see if they have a relative in the know. They might share some unclass on the subject

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 10:21
by spazsinbad
YATLO You are the lazy one. YOU find what you need - YOU make claims that you cannot back up. So where is this mythical report? YOU find it for us. I have no wish other than to read the report you refer to these days. Otherwise I wish the ADF well but I have not sighted 'the report'. YOU make lots of claims about me but I make none about YOU. Capice?

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 11:14
by optimist
This is getting as bad as a Rafale thread. Nothing I, or anyone else can say will let you put this down. Again I defer to Defence Talk and the current serving in DMO RAAF and RAN who have schooled you on this. In the end they had to lock the thread because of the nonsense.
I note you haven't put up a gov link in anyway supporting your views.

The defence minister indicated it was thrown out years ago, where he said the acquisition of the F-35B was “an option which has been considered from day one.”. and ADF threw it to the white paper for consideration as a way of dumping it. Needless to say there was no mention of the f-35b in the white paper when it came out.
http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/0 ... ds-report/


You aren't going to get the actual ADF report to gov. it's classified. You are going to get enough to say they thought it was a stupid thought bubble from Abbot that they had to make the gestures to not show him up.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 11:29
by spazsinbad
I'm waiting for the report - not reports on 'the report'. And why me? You have already mentioned the 'blogposts' such as ASPI - why not include them. It is not just me. I'm interested. Obviously you have no interest so you should let it be. No?

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 11:40
by optimist
I'm sure there are no shortage of bored writers, perhaps there may be some more submissions to parliament for it. I guess I'm signalling you out because you are here and are reposting this nonsense. If the authors were here I'd say the same to them. I thought you would know better. Other than this subject the stuff you say makes sense. You just can't let this go, the ADF want nothing to do with the f-35b, other than joint stuff with USMC.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 11:59
by spazsinbad
I'd have thought SINGLING would have been a better word but HEY I just like MANGLING English. Amazing how "I should know better". I do. That is why I'm interested. Why you are not takes you to explain - not me. And BTW what is your own expertise? "...the ADF want nothing to do with the f-35b..." HOW do you know? Yet I have quoted AM Brown RAAF on this.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 12:31
by optimist
I didn't see your link to Brown, could you give me your post. I'm sure the RAAF doesn't want any f-35b out of their 100.
How do I know that the ADF doesn't want them? Is because when Abbott offered, they refused. All they had to say was "yes, what a wonderful idea. Why didn't we think of this." we would have a squadron of F-35b ordered already and wouldn't have any use for these threads

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 13:42
by spazsinbad
Here is the faulty 'PM Abbott OFFERED' meme. Abbott did no such thing - he said investigate or words to that effect. How can a PM OFFER anything. I thought this erroneous meme was quashed earlier. Oh well - that is why they are mememes.
:devil: I got the name of the AM rong - oh well.. :doh: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=354900&hilit=Davies#p354900
"...The service seems to still harbor hopes of an all-Lightning fighter and strike force. In a little-noticed address to an ASPI meeting in July, the head of the RAAF, Air Marshal Leo Davies, listed the candidates for Australia’s next combat-aircraft program as Super Hornets, F-35As and F-35Bs.... Davies did not explain the merits of the third, quite surprising option, the F-35B. But an obvious possibility is that Australia has begun to wonder about the survivability of its northern airbases in the face of attack by Chinese cruise and ballistic missiles.... 21 Oct 2016
http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/0 ... potential/

Why have a thread about future F-35Bs on LHDs? Because the idea has merit for the future - believe it or not - 3rd LHD.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 22:15
by optimist
You are quoting Davies from 2014, when abbott made his thought bubble and it was being politely stuck back up his a$$, from where he originally pulled it. Show me anything from ADF, 2016 onwards that seriously proposes f-35b.

You have your opinion on whether Abbott's thought bubble was an offer that was later changed to a suggestion to evaluate the possibility. You will no doubt have the original statement when it was first uttered by Abbott. My recollection is that it was an offer and he was matter of fact that because the LHD had a ski jump, we should put some f-35b on the boats.

It's reasonable to talk of a future fantasy fleet. but silly to use anything from Abbott to support it as a possibility. ADF is clear on the subject. It would take a future political change of opinion and the money to put it in place.
It really isn't as simple as buying another LHD and 24 f-35b. That is the cheap part. All the infrastructure and other platforms to support this ship and have it survivable, is where the money is spent.
My fantasy fleet would have 2 LHD and 56 f-35b. A batch of support ships and subs, with all the space stuff in play. It would really be a change in the ADF force structure and could easily have a 50% increase in budget.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 00:26
by spazsinbad
UMMM no - the AM Davies date is 21 Oct 2016. Again stop quoting from your faulty memory THEN asking ME to find quotes. YOU find them. Find the ORIGINAL ABBOTT PM quote. Quote where ADF is clear on F-35Bs. Again: what is your expertise?

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 01:30
by optimist
By all means speculate on a possible future fantasy fleet. It's when you throw Abbott and the associated response into the mix. Trying to give this fantasy fleet some credibility is where I have a problem

There will be no aussie f-35b on our 2 existing LHD, end of story.

the link was 2014 and I thought that was davies. my mistake.
http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/0 ... potential/

from your thread link, I think davies misspoke about the B, it must have been a surprise to everyone, it isn't a serious option and I doubt there is any other reference to it from 2016 onwards from ADF. Or that Davies ever mentioned the B again. I think he was having a flashback to 2014 from some bad mushrooms. :mrgreen:
"Davies did not plain the merits of the third, quite surprising option, the F-35B"

My experience is reading the white paper, no mention of the B..reading what is said to gov hearings , again I haven't read of a serious proposal from ADF. Along with what the active ADF people in the know, are saying in general unclass terms on the forums. There isn't a chance in hell.
My DMO contacts had nothing to do with the f-35b and nothing unclass came from them. Other than their opinion that is that it was an off the cuff thought bubble, that ADF had to respond to.

anyway this is getting circular and I might have a rest from this thread for a while

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 02:35
by spazsinbad
JUstInTime to have a rest because here comes another one....
The F-35B and Australia’s Canberra-class: Still a Chance?
14 Feb 2019 Robert Farley

"Does the F-35B still have a fighting chance to make it onto Australia’s Canberra-class warships? [best read at URL]

Is Australia going to take another look at the F-35B? Specifically, will Australia reconsider the acquisition of the F-35B for its Canberra-class amphibious assault ships?

Perhaps inevitably, Japan’s decision to modify its Izumo-class aircraft carriers to operate the F-35B has rekindled debate over the ships in Australia. For reasons good and ill, military procurement decisions often have a transnational impact; civilians and soldiers feel the need to match their friends as well as their enemies, and big acquisitions can change the symbolic landscape that military organizations operate in. The Japanese decision also has more practical consequences, as it increases the interoperability returns for an Australian acquisition, and may marginally reduce the cost of buying the F-35B. Indeed, in light of the British decision to fly F-35Bs from its two large carriers, almost all of Australia’s major defense partners will field carrier-borne F-35Bs. As was the case with Japan, the Royal Australian Navy almost certainly can rely on the theoretical and practical work that the U.S. Marine Corps has done on optimizing the effectiveness of the F-35B on its own large amphibious assault ships....

...Australia could probably use the F-35B in a variety of non-carrier contingencies, as it can take-off from under-prepared airfields across Southeast Asia. The government has resisted investing in the F-35B, however. Inter-service rivalry plays a role here, as the Royal Australian Air Force has been noticeably cold about acquiring a capability that would result in a division of offensive air responsibilities.

Australia faces many of the same dilemmas as Japan; it acquired amphibious warships to conduct amphibious warfare and its ancillary operations, such as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. Indeed, in outlining the difficulties in modifying the Canberras, and the trade-offs associated with giving up a portion of their amphibious capabilities, Malcolm Davis suggests acquiring another one or two carriers...."

Source: https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/the-f-3 ... -a-chance/

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 03:20
by steve2267
My ozzie fantasy fleet consists of three naval tasks forces or battle groups. Each one consisting of
  • One fleet air arm LHD with 16 Killer Bees, plus 3 CV-22's, and CSAR helos
  • One air assault LHD with MV-22's / Chinooks (if you must) / MH-60s / or NH-90 helos -- all fully marinized with automatically folding rotor blades
  • Two air defense / anti-surface destroyers with backup anti-sub roles
  • Four frigates, primarily anti-sub, with anti-surface, air defense backup roles
  • Two of your new French made submarines
  • One amphibious transport dock ship

Eight training / spare Killer Bees.

One task force is in maintenance and/or training workups, leaving two for the North / West approaches to ozzieland, or one for the West, one for the East, or one to go play up north, and one to guard the homeland.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 05:04
by Corsair1963
optimist wrote:By all means speculate on a possible future fantasy fleet. It's when you throw Abbott and the associated response into the mix. Trying to give this fantasy fleet some credibility is where I have a problem

There will be no aussie f-35b on our 2 existing LHD, end of story.

the link was 2014 and I thought that was davies. my mistake.
http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/0 ... potential/

from your thread link, I think davies misspoke about the B, it must have been a surprise to everyone, it isn't a serious option and I doubt there is any other reference to it from 2016 onwards from ADF. Or that Davies ever mentioned the B again. I think he was having a flashback to 2014 from some bad mushrooms. :mrgreen:
"Davies did not plain the merits of the third, quite surprising option, the F-35B"

My experience is reading the white paper, no mention of the B..reading what is said to gov hearings , again I haven't read of a serious proposal from ADF. Along with what the active ADF people in the know, are saying in general unclass terms on the forums. There isn't a chance in hell.
My DMO contacts had nothing to do with the f-35b and nothing unclass came from them. Other than their opinion that is that it was an off the cuff thought bubble, that ADF had to respond to.

anyway this is getting circular and I might have a rest from this thread for a while



In my opinion Australia will acquire the F-35B sooner or later. Which, they likely will operate in some form from the Canberra Class of LHD's. Especially, as more nations start operating a similar combo of ships and F-35B's. (Japan, Turkey, US, and likely Spain)

Honestly, this whole backlash against buying the F-35B. Sounds very much like the controversy surrounding the F-35 for the RAAF in the first place. Yet, we all know how that turned out...... :wink:

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 05:14
by Conan
Corsair1963 wrote:
optimist wrote:By all means speculate on a possible future fantasy fleet. It's when you throw Abbott and the associated response into the mix. Trying to give this fantasy fleet some credibility is where I have a problem

There will be no aussie f-35b on our 2 existing LHD, end of story.

the link was 2014 and I thought that was davies. my mistake.
http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/0 ... potential/

from your thread link, I think davies misspoke about the B, it must have been a surprise to everyone, it isn't a serious option and I doubt there is any other reference to it from 2016 onwards from ADF. Or that Davies ever mentioned the B again. I think he was having a flashback to 2014 from some bad mushrooms. :mrgreen:
"Davies did not plain the merits of the third, quite surprising option, the F-35B"

My experience is reading the white paper, no mention of the B..reading what is said to gov hearings , again I haven't read of a serious proposal from ADF. Along with what the active ADF people in the know, are saying in general unclass terms on the forums. There isn't a chance in hell.
My DMO contacts had nothing to do with the f-35b and nothing unclass came from them. Other than their opinion that is that it was an off the cuff thought bubble, that ADF had to respond to.

anyway this is getting circular and I might have a rest from this thread for a while



In my opinion Australia will acquire the F-35B sooner or later. Which, they likely will operate in some form from the Canberra Class of LHD's. Especially, as more nations start operating a similar combo of ships and F-35B's. (Japan, Turkey, US, and likely Spain)

Honestly, this whole backlash against buying the F-35B. Sounds very much like the controversy surrounding the F-35 for the RAAF in the first place. Yet, we all know how that turned out...... :wink:


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...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 05:31
by optimist
Conan wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
optimist wrote:By all means speculate on a possible future fantasy fleet. It's when you throw Abbott and the associated response into the mix. Trying to give this fantasy fleet some credibility is where I have a problem

There will be no aussie f-35b on our 2 existing LHD, end of story.

the link was 2014 and I thought that was davies. my mistake.
http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/0 ... potential/

from your thread link, I think davies misspoke about the B, it must have been a surprise to everyone, it isn't a serious option and I doubt there is any other reference to it from 2016 onwards from ADF. Or that Davies ever mentioned the B again. I think he was having a flashback to 2014 from some bad mushrooms. :mrgreen:
"Davies did not plain the merits of the third, quite surprising option, the F-35B"

My experience is reading the white paper, no mention of the B..reading what is said to gov hearings , again I haven't read of a serious proposal from ADF. Along with what the active ADF people in the know, are saying in general unclass terms on the forums. There isn't a chance in hell.
My DMO contacts had nothing to do with the f-35b and nothing unclass came from them. Other than their opinion that is that it was an off the cuff thought bubble, that ADF had to respond to.

anyway this is getting circular and I might have a rest from this thread for a while



In my opinion Australia will acquire the F-35B sooner or later. Which, they likely will operate in some form from the Canberra Class of LHD's. Especially, as more nations start operating a similar combo of ships and F-35B's. (Japan, Turkey, US, and likely Spain)

Honestly, this whole backlash against buying the F-35B. Sounds very much like the controversy surrounding the F-35 for the RAAF in the first place. Yet, we all know how that turned out...... :wink:


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...

Read this thread, I think it covered it OK. although they pick it up when it was being reported that abbott called for an enquiry, They do have the white paper and the gov hearing with the defence chiefs saying they don't want the f-35b
http://www.adf-messageboard.com.au/invb ... =2521&st=0

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 06:03
by spazsinbad
What stops 'optimist' from quoting from the source text he/she wants to reference? Why vaguely paraphrase? Why Why?

BTW the same material would be in this forum - but scattered all over - until this thread was started. Find it here?

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 06:14
by optimist
It's a 4 page threat that is worth reading as a whole, why quote anything from it? I gave an outline to it. it's a 10 minute look.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 06:28
by weasel1962
I am hard-pressed to see any official debunk of the F-35B either.

The white papers may be found here (which is probably posted by Spaz sometime earlier - I'm too lazy to look).
http://www.defence.gov.au/WhitePaper/Links.asp

of which the submissions on the F-35B were acknowledged in the pdf "Defence White Paper Expert Panel report - Guarding against uncertainty:.

What the lack of an official rejection in writing tells me, is that whilst the ADF may privately not think its a good idea, its still a possibility that is not rejected, particularly for the 4th sqn replacement.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 06:40
by optimist
weasel1962 wrote:I am hard-pressed to see any official debunk of the F-35B either.

The white papers may be found here (which is probably posted by Spaz sometime earlier - I'm too lazy to look).
http://www.defence.gov.au/WhitePaper/Links.asp

of which the submissions on the F-35B were acknowledged in the pdf "Defence White Paper Expert Panel report - Guarding against uncertainty:.

What the lack of an official rejection in writing tells me, is that whilst the ADF may privately not think its a good idea, its still a possibility that is not rejected, particularly for the 4th sqn replacement.


That's OK, you may not know who Jennings and Co. are. You can take them seriously if you wish to, ADF doesn't. Jennings was disendorsed and lost his electoral seat, so I guess even the politicians didn't think much of him.The LHD and F-35b were rejected on cost etc. F-35b never made a mention in the white paper

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 06:44
by steve2267
weasel1962 wrote:What the lack of an official rejection in writing tells me, is that whilst the ADF may privately not think its a good idea, its still a possibility that is not rejected, particularly for the 4th sqn replacement.


In general I think the Aussies run a fairly tight ship, no pun intended, regarding defense matters. Their plan to use Super Dupers to bridge the gap to the F-35A, the acquisition of C-17's, E-7A Wedgetails, and of course, their continued acquisition of F-35A's all speak to a professionally run defense department.

Then they go and put non-marinised helos on their Canberra's, helos without automatically folding rotors, and Chinooks which must have the rotor blades manually removed to fit them into the hangar... and I just shake my head.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 06:45
by weasel1962
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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 06:48
by optimist
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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 06:53
by weasel1962
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?

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 06:54
by spazsinbad
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

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 06:56
by optimist
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..

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 07:01
by weasel1962
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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 07:03
by optimist
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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 07:05
by spazsinbad
Once again 'optimist' paraphrases BADLY what he thinks ADF thinks. IF ONLY said 'optimist' would unnerstan copy/paste.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 07:12
by optimist
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...."

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 07:37
by spazsinbad
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

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 07:41
by optimist
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?

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 07:42
by spazsinbad
I can see you have issues with what people post here. Why ask questions - IF - you can provide answers. Please do so....

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 07:52
by weasel1962
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...

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 07:57
by optimist
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

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 08:06
by optimist
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

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 08:21
by Corsair1963
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...


:doh: 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.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 08:25
by weasel1962
optimist wrote: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


Thanks, with due respect, I went through each post on the 4 pages. Still can't see any link to APH that shows an official rejection or even a parliament discussion on the F-35B. Granted, lots of media coverage including a link from baddams & gang but really, nothing that provides anything other than media hearsay that the ADF has rejected the F-35B.

Maybe my reading of "Australian" seems a bit off. Would be useful to be a bit more specific in what you are relying upon (other than silence in parliament and white papers)...

Just to give some context to my scepticism, about 10 years back I raised the possibility that the Japanese could buy the F-35B. Lots of similar responses about those suggestions being "fantasy"...Nothing in Japan remotely suggests this until last year.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 08:40
by spazsinbad
Another good reply from the 'weasel1962' - meanwhile an example of searching the downloadable PDF (perhaps with some difficulty with Internet Explorer 11 users BUT Edge & Firefox Win10 users should be OK; something happened to IE11).

Using CTRL+F the PDF may be searched using ABBOTT.Page 8 of PDF above has the Kerin reporter story posted here today. Page 9 also used 'proposal' for Abbott quote. Then on page 36 btm left the naughty Roggeveen says Abbott says:
02 May 2014 PM Abbott: "We are certainly retaining the option to purchase an additional squadron — a further 18 Joint Strike Fighters and we haven't decided precisely what type it might be — that will be something that will be looked at in the context of the coming Defence white paper."

Then on page 38 of the PDF using ABBOTT for search:
23 May 2014 “Prime Minister Tony Abbott has instructed the authors of the new Defence White Paper currently in preparation to consider the acquisition of the STOVL F-35B variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to operate from the Navy’s forthcoming LHD amphibious ships. “It is understood Mr Abbott has instructed planners working on his defence white paper to examine the possibility of putting a squadron of 12 of the short takeoff and vertical landing version of the JSFs — the F-35B — on to the ships,” a report in The Australian newspaper on Friday says...."
Then btm same PDF page:
"...But the question of F-35Bs being acquired for the ADF was subsequently flagged by Defence Minister David Johnston in an interview with The Weekend West on May 17, where he said the acquisition of the F-35B was “an option which has been considered from day one.”

Then there are more ABBOTT finds but less relevant so on page 45 article 03 Jun 2014:
"...Facing a Senate hearing on Monday, Defence chiefs said little work had so far been done on the possibility of buying a short take-off & vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter - an idea that has seized the interest of the Prime Minister. Under questioning by Labor defence spokesman Stephen Conroy, defence chiefs confirmed for the first time that Mr Abbott had asked them to look at the merit of buying the F-35B jump jets under the forthcoming Defence White Paper & accompanying Force Structure Review. Under the proposal, they would be flown from the navy's 2 Landing Helicopter Dock amphibious assault ships, which are due to come into service over the next 12 to 18 months.

Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown said the force had not asked for the F-35B but added the idea should be examined along with all other credible options. "Like all things when you have a new White Paper, you should always examine all sorts of options ... It wasn't something the air force has particularly pushed," he said...."

From page 46 to page 52 there is an extensive quote from Fed Parliament Inquiry. I'll let you read it ala 'optimist' method.

Page 53 gets VICIOUS Jul 2014:
"...CAF [AM Geoff Brown RAAF] also revealed that Air Force is currently studying the potential operations of a short take off vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B from the decks of Navy's new Landing Helicopter Dock ships.

The Abbott government is reportedly interested in expanding the LHD role by the addition of combat jets and analysis is now being undertaken to determine what will be required. Air Force has previously (and repeatedly) said that the F-35B was not under consideration and that modelling showed the LHDs could be adequately protected by shore-based F-35As...." [ideas on HOW would be nice I guess]

Page 65 has great STOVL ex-A4G pilot David Baddams submission where he claims Abbott 'endorsed' the idea under discussion (hmmmm - no). Earlier FARLEY piece on page 79. Then page 80 has this relevant quote 23 Jul 2014:
"...The F-35B proposal is being pushed by Abbott’s office..."

Page 82 more or less repeats earlier ABBOTT quotes. Page 94 quote 27 Oct 2014 says (btm of pg):
"...Neither the RAN, Australian Army nor, least of all, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is publicly supporting the idea...."

There are other ABBOTT mentions as mentioned - I hope the more relevant ABBOTT quotes have been found in the PDF.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 09:00
by optimist
yes, spazsinbad. all from the 2014 period. There was a lot said during that time. Then crickets and no addition to the white paper. With no one of merit supporting the f-35b
Minister David Johnston saying it was considered from day one ..also means it was a stupid idea we threw out years ago.

weasel1962,I don't know if you are just playing games or not. perhaps you should read the first page of the 4 page thread again, you obviously missed the quotes and links. You may even like page 2. There is even links from Spazsinbad in the thread.but if you really have trouble, you could look here
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/se ... b3/0000%22

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 09:14
by weasel1962
optimist wrote:yes, spazsinbad. all from the 2014 period. There was a lot said during that time. Then crickets and no addition to the white paper.

weasel1962,I don't know if you are just playing games or not. perhaps you should read it again, you obviously missed the quotes and links. There is even links from Spazsinbad in the thread.but if you really have trouble, you could look here
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/se ... b3/0000%22


Went to the link and there is no reference to F-35B. Now realised one has to click on the left link to access the discussions so my apologies. However what I read doesn't help your case. It points more to "its too early." Exactly what Spaz mentioned and he has the salient quotes.

Senator CONROY: Regarding the new LHDs, a couple of weeks ago The Australian reported that the Prime Minister has, 'Instructed planners working on his Defence white paper to examine the possibility of putting a squadron of 12 of the short take-off and vertical landing version of the JSFs—the F-35B—on to the ships.' Are you familiar with that article, Vice Admiral Griggs?

Vice Adm. Griggs : I am.

Senator CONROY: Has the Navy been asked to provide any input to this possibility?

Vice Adm. Griggs : What is happening is that the whole issue of short or vertical take-off aircraft is being considered as part of the force structure review and the white paper process. We will participate in that, as will Air Force. I welcome that.

Senator CONROY: Thanks for coming to the table. How much modification will be needed to modify the LHDs to launch, land and carry the JSF B variants? Air Marshal Brown might want to comment on—

Vice Adm. Griggs : No, he probably does not.

Air Marshal Brown : Depends on your answer.

Vice Adm. Griggs : There has been some work already done, and it was done during the 2008-09 force structure review white paper process, to understand what the implications would be. It largely revolves around ablative coating on the flight deck because of the heat generated from the F35-B. It relates to fuel storage and fuel lines. It relates to amendments or modifications we would have to make to magazines on the ships to take the weapons that support the F35-B, and there are other aspects like some of the classified compartments that we would need to make sure existed to support the mission system for the F35-B. I think I have covered most of the issues.

Senator CONROY: You mentioned storage, planes equipment, fuel, munitions and support crew. Can you just outline what those changes would need to be? Where are we up to with the LHDs? Where are they being put together?

Vice Adm. Griggs : In Williamstown.

Senator CONROY: I thought so. I saw it on the weekend. I live in Williamstown, as you probably remember. What sort of changes in storage for the actual planes, or the equipment, fuel, munitions, and support crew would you need to make? Because for being put together they seem to be a fairly long way down the track right now.

Vice Adm. Griggs : The ship—

Senator CONROY: Yes.

Vice Adm. Griggs : Canberra will deliver some time in the third quarter of this year, probably around September.

Senator CONROY: It looked in pretty good shape.

Vice Adm. Griggs : So, it is not that far away. We have to, obviously, do some more work on this, because I would say this has been a fairly superficial examination up until now because there has not been a serious consideration of this capability going into the ship.

Senator CONROY: Air Marshal Brown, did you ask for this capability? Did the Air Force request this?

Air Marshal Brown : Like all things, when you have a new white paper you should always examine all sorts of options. It was not something that Air Force has particularly pushed. I would just like to add to Vice Admiral Griggs's modifications required to the ship. One of the big issues with having fixed wing aeroplanes come back onto a ship is you have actually got to get them back in poor weather. So, there would be new radars required on the ship as well as instrument landing systems. So, there will be some extensive modifications around that.

Gen. Hurley : I think the start point of this, as Vice Admiral Griggs has pointed out, is there is the need—if we look at the phases we go through, there are needs and then requirements. We are starting at what are the requirements, that is, how do we adapt the ship and what does a ship that launches vertical take-off aircraft look like. There are two parts to the Prime Minister's request. One is to drive it back to see how would this fit into the force structure of the future, how would it meet the needs of the future and so forth, and then we would do the prioritisation, stack it up against other needs and so forth into the future—they come out of the white paper. Once you have gone through all that, if you were to say, 'Okay we need to have this type of capability and we are going to now go through what that would cost and then what the opportunity costs are', then we will go down and say, 'Okay, how would you modify a ship to put this capability in?' That would be part of that costing process. It is a number of steps to actually get to that detailed questioning you are asking at the moment.

Senator CONROY: I appreciate that, General Hurley. I am simply going on a newspaper article that bobbed up and seeking to establish for the committee an understanding of what would be involved in making that sort of change right now. We are a fair way down getting the strike fighters, we are a fair way down of—last time I looked on the weekend, it was getting more impressively large and to suddenly throw a curveball in like this at relatively the last minute—I appreciate we do have things in the pipeline—it just seemed like an odd thing to do.

Mr Richardson : Could I just add—

Senator CONROY: Mr Richardson, join us.

Mr Richardson : It is a reasonable question about that option, and it is being examined in the context of the force structure review.

Senator CONROY: Are you able to take this on notice? Air Marshal Brown indicated radars would be an extensive change. Vice Admiral Griggs described some. Are there any other changes to the structure of the ship? You mentioned the deck; obviously that makes sense.

Air Marshal Brown : I will just defer to the secretary, I think there is a lot.

Senator CONROY: Does the deck need to be reinforced or is it just a paint job?

Air Marshal Brown : There is a lot of—

Senator CONROY: A special paint, but an application.

Air Marshal Brown : There is a lot of work to be done conceptually before we get to that stage, so it would be a little speculative to just give you a list of modifications to the ship at this stage.

Vice Adm. Griggs : I think we have given you a sense of the sort of things that we have—

Senator CONROY: Would there be different personnel, training, aircraft maintenance or pilots needed in the circumstance? I see you are nodding there. Is there anything that you can tell us on that?

Air Marshal Brown : I think it is early days as to how much. There certainly would be differences in training as to how much that would require. There would be issues that we would have to go through. There would be a different logistics system as well for that aeroplane so, again, a fair bit of work to go through.

Senator CONROY: It has been a long time since the Navy had a ship capable of launching aircraft. What sort of organisational changes would you need to make to carry that capability out today? Would they be operated by Navy pilots or Air Force pilots? Who would own them?

Gen. Hurley : I would own them.

Senator CONROY: That goes without saying that the CDF would own them. I am just interested if there was going to be a dogfight there, no pun intended.

Gen. Hurley : No, I am trying to stop one. We need to go back to the processes that we have in place with the white paper force structure review and look at the place of a capability in this. Those types of questions that you are asking are long-term questions. For us to speculate whether we have a new fleet air arm that is bigger which now has fixed wing capabilities to strike off a carrier looking aeroplane, frankly it is just too early. We are not anywhere near that mode. Although they are interesting and intriguing questions and will keep our younger people very busy around the coffee table at the moment, they are pure speculation.

Senator CONROY: Our Prime Minister is tricky like that. You have got to watch him.

Gen. Hurley : It is pure speculation.

Senator CONROY: I am quoting the Prime Minister's leak to The Australian. I have not double-checked but I am willing to bet it said exclusively.

Gen. Hurley : I think we are in the situation where new governments come in. There has been a white paper evolving for a while. We have had a platform that is about to come into the service which is essentially based around delivering an amphibious capability built around ship-to-shore, which is helicopter borne and the small boats from the well of the ship. The Prime Minister has a view about a capability that he thinks might be relevant to the ADF. He has asked us to look at that. We have a process in place at the moment that will allow us to have a look at that and, depending where we come out on that process, we would then go into all of those technical decisions about the nature of ship and force structure implications for the ADF. I do not want to touch it yet until I know whether I am going to have one.

Senator CONROY: Minister, you just cannot take your eye off that Prime Minister, can you? He is just full of good ideas.

Senator Johnston: I think you might concede the Prime Minister is interested in exploring options. He wants a versatile, capable ADF and there is no harm in exploring with the experts what the options are. I think that is perfectly normal and natural and he should certainly not be criticised for it.

Senator CONROY: I was just saying that you have got to keep your eye on him every minute. He keeps jumping in there on you. Can I just clarify—and I appreciate the point you are making, General Hurley, that no-one has actually made a decision about it, but just for the purpose of the committee understanding what it would mean if you were to go down that path, without going into too much detail—the discussion relates to the fourth operational squadron of JSFs purchased in addition to the existing 72 which are already on order. When is the last of those 72 expected to be delivered to Australia?

Air Marshal Brown : We expect the last of the JSFs in that tranche in 2022.

Senator CONROY: When is the second LHD expected to enter service?

Vice Adm. Griggs : 2016.

Senator CONROY: So if we were to choose to proceed with the purchase of any B-variant JSFs as a fourth operational squadron they would likely come into service well after both of the current LHDs enter service. Is that correct?

Gen. Hurley : That would be correct.

Senator CONROY: That would seem to be the case?

Senator Johnston: You would think so.

Senator CONROY: I was at Forgacs in Newcastle recently and I had the 1-3-8 rule explained to me. It was said that if something cost $1 to build on the workshop floor at a facility like Forgacs that it would cost $3 to build once these blocks have been combined and it would cost $8 to do it once you are working inside the whole of a commissioned Navy vessel. Does that sound about right?

Vice Adm. Griggs : There is no doubt it costs more to modify them to design and to build, yes.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I thought it was 1-2-5.

Senator CONROY: Maybe they are already gilding the lily on me. They are buttering me up in advance. With that in mind, does it seem like a sensible financial decision to make significant alterations to the LHDs once they are well into their operational lives within the Navy fleet?

Mr Richardson : We are not at that point.

Senator CONROY: But if you were to make that decision? They are in the water in 2016.

Mr Richardson : We are not at that point. The first step is part of the force structure review. Anything beyond that is speculative at this point.

Senator CONROY: This is just like two plus two equals four. If the ships are already in the water it costs more to adapt them to a new Air Force purchase if we make a new Air Force purchase.

Mr Richardson : Of course it does.

Senator CONROY: Depending on whether it is an Air Force or a Navy purchase in that sense?

Mr Richardson : Yes.

Senator CONROY: That is just maths?

Mr Richardson : That is right.

Senator CONROY: It is not about the high level. That is what you would be thinking about when you would be having a conversation in the Defence white paper?

Mr Richardson : Yes, that is right.

Senator CONROY: Would it make more sense to buy or build a purpose built light aircraft carrier to act as a platform for any future JSF B-variants? This is not just a backdoor way to sneak an aircraft carrier into the game, is it?

Senator IAN MACDONALD: That is certainly hypothetical.

Mr Richardson : It is.

Senator CONROY: I am saying that it is going to cost a lot more to make the changes. You would be the first vice admiral to have an aircraft carrier on your watch for a while.

Mr Richardson : You are getting way ahead of where we are at.

Mr King : The ships are in service for 35 years. In the course of their life, requirements of them change and all the matters that have been raised like costs and amount of change, the national interest is considered in doing that. It is true that there is a different cost after you enter service, but if it is in the national interest and that is a cheaper way to get a capability—and I am referring to the general ship modifications—then that is what a country does, but it is a long way off such a decision.

Senator CONROY: How much do you think it would cost to modify the LHDs to accommodate the variant?

Mr Richardson : We are not prepared to speculate on anything like that in advance of having done the work.

Senator CONROY: The Prime Minister's office has put that into the public domain.

Mr Richardson : We are not prepared to speculate. The Prime Minister has not speculated on that.

Senator CONROY: I said that the Prime Minister's office has put that into the public domain.

Mr Richardson : I do not believe the Prime Minister's office speculated on costs. You are asking us to speculate on costs before we have done any work, and it would be inappropriate for us to do so.

Senator CONROY: I will ask you a technical question rather than a cost question. Would an LHD modified to operate as a launching platform for the JSF also be able to operate as an amphibious vessel as well?

Vice Adm. Griggs : Yes, but there are trade-offs that you would have to make.

Senator CONROY: Would it still be possible to load the same number of helicopters and landing craft that are planned for the existing LHDs?

Gen. Hurley : It is just impossible to answer that question because we do not know whether (a) we will have the platform, (b) what modifications are actually required and (c) what would be the change to capabilities to the ship.

Senator CONROY: We do know a few things, though.

Gen. Hurley : To be very honest, we cannot answer questions of that nature. That is just asking us to do the impossible.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: The better question might be whether there are any other LHD type vessels around the world that have been built by Spain or anyone else that have a fixed wing aircraft take-off capability?

Vice Adm. Griggs : The LHD that we have?

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Yes. Is any other navy using it as an aircraft carrier?

Vice Adm. Griggs : The Spanish do.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Do they?

Vice Adm. Griggs : They use it as part of the mix of their aircraft that they have.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: What sort of aircraft do they run off?

Vice Adm. Griggs : AV-8B Harriers.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: The English jump jet?

Vice Adm. Griggs : The jump jet.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Do they jump them off or do they fly them off?

Vice Adm. Griggs : They ramp them off the ramp.

Senator CONROY: Thank you, Senator MacDonald. With all due respect, General Hurley, there are some things that are fixed and, as Vice Admiral Griggs indicated, there are trade-offs so the question is: is it possible to load the same number of helicopters and landing craft if you have joint strike fighters on board? That is short of doubling the size which you cannot do because it is a fixed size—

Gen. Hurley : I do not know. No-one at the table knows and no-one at the table should be asked to speculate on it. I do not know.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: That is purely hypothetical and not under the rules of estimates.

Senator CONROY: You are not actually chairing it, Senator MacDonald.

CHAIR: Can we have some order?

Gen. Hurley : I do not even know. It depends what sort of mix of helicopters. Do you want CH-47s and Tigers and MRH-90s? What does the mix look like? What are you going to substitute? What are you going to carry for a particular mission?

Senator CONROY: Perhaps you did not hear the end of my question. I talked about being planned, so you actually know what you have planned for the existing—

Gen. Hurley : We know what mixes are possible but we do not know what changes to the ship would be required; therefore, how would we know which helicopters we cannot carry and what impact that would have on the operation?

Senator CONROY: We can play a sillier game and say: could you squeeze some joint strike fighters in with all of the existing material that you have planned to be on them at the moment?

Gen. Hurley : I do not know because I do not know what is required to put a STOVL onto the LHD.

Senator CONROY: I am sure that Vice Admiral Griggs could help us. Could you squeeze a joint strike fighter—

Gen. Hurley : Vice Admiral Griggs will not answer the question. I will answer the question, Senator. You are asking us to speculate on something we have no idea about.

CHAIR: Senator Conroy, the witnesses have made it very clear several times that they are not prepared to speculate, and I think you should respect that.

Gen. Hurley : Frankly, you are asking me who is going to be in the grand final of the VFL this year.

Senator CONROY: That is easy. It will be Collingwood and it does not matter who else. It is very simple to answer that one.

Gen. Hurley : I do not follow the sport.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I have a question, Chair.

CHAIR: Senator Conroy, we need to move on so let us stick to substantial questions.

Senator CONROY: I have many substantial questions and those ones were also substantial, based on information that has been leaked by the Prime Minister's office.

CHAIR: Senator Macdonald has questions.

Senator CONROY: I would like to ask some questions about the current use of the LHDs. Within the Amphibious Ready Group can you explain to me the activities such as ship to objective manoeuvres and distributed manoeuvres? Can you explain what is involved in those?

Vice Adm. Griggs : You are using US doctrinal terms.

Senator CONROY: Apologies.

Vice Adm. Griggs : I am sure the Chief of Army will talk about the land warfare aspects of this.

Lt Gen. Morrison : I would characterise our knowledge of amphibious operations at the moment as suitable for what the ADF is currently asked to do primarily in relation to humanitarian assistance or disaster relief and operations up to perhaps service protected evacuation in relatively benign circumstances. We have managed to get to that point with Army and Navy working with the platforms that the Navy has had to date, the LPAs and HMAS Tobruk. The formation of an amphibious capability within Army is a process that is now underway, but we are only in the early days of it. I have designated one of our seven battalions as the force that will build our knowledge in that regard.

At the moment, however, there are only two naval platforms that they are capable of working with; that is, HMAS Tobruk and HMAS Choules. It is not until we see the landing helicopter docks, the LHDs, actually in service that I think we will really start to build more rapidly an amphibious capability within the ADF.

So at the moment, while we understand a number of points around doctrine and indeed current world's best practice because we have allies such as the United States and particularly the US Marine Corp sharing detailed information with us, I think we are not at a point where we could put a hand on our heart and say that we are well down the path now of a true amphibious capability within the ADF beyond that that we have been operating over the last two decades.

Senator CONROY: Admiral Griggs mentioned that I was using American terms. What are our terms for that?

Lt Gen. Morrison : Terminology is all well and good.

Senator CONROY: It is just so that I can use the right language in the future.

Lt Gen. Morrison : If you are interested we could provide a briefing for you.

Senator CONROY: What would be the alternative to ship to objective manoeuvres and distributed manoeuvres which Admiral Griggs indicated were American terms?

Lt Gen. Morrison : The American amphibious capability is well beyond whatever we are aiming at now or into the future. The US Marine Corp, the US Navy and the US Air Force, supported by other US military assets, are capable of conducting amphibious operations at a considerable size and capacity that the ADF will never have. Their terminology refers very specifically to what is intrinsic to the US military.

I am loathe to start getting into descriptions of doctrine or terminology at this point with you because I think it would actually be confusing. It may point to a capability currently resident in the US forces that we are not going to have, so I do not think it is helpful. As I said, we could provide you with a briefing on this and take you through it to show you what we mean by various terms as they apply to amphibious operations with the necessary explanations and diagrams if that would be useful at any time that you may wish, provided the minister is happy.

Senator CONROY: You mentioned doctrine before. I was going to ask who is responsible within Defence for developing our doctrine around this area.

Lt Gen. Morrison : It is a shared capability between the Chief of Navy and myself. We have groups within both services that work together to develop joint doctrine, joint tactics and procedures. They are also supporting a great deal of the work that will actually have to be done as we start to operate at a level of amphibious capability that we have not been at before, and both Admiral Griggs and I have responsibility for that to the CDF.

Senator CONROY: Taking on board your very valid point that we will not be reaching the capability of the US—and no-one suggests that we are going to and we have no intention to try to—when we compare what we are planning to do with our LHDs here in Australia—and this may be too early for you to be able to give us a fulsome answer—are we proposing that the second RAR will be seeking to achieve a specialisation in amphibious operations perhaps comparable to the Royal Marines or the US Marines? I am just looking for a general but if you are not that far down the track, then just say so.

Lt Gen. Morrison : I think that is a fair characterisation of the path that we are on at the moment. Certainly there was a recognition within Army that we needed to commit a major unit to developing a complete understanding of what an ADF or an Australian amphibious capability actually will require in the future and 2 RAR has been designated as that unit.

At the moment, as I said in answer to an earlier question, they have been able to work with HMAS Tobruk and HMAS Choules, but as yet they have not been able to work with HMAS Canberra, the first of the LHDs. They have had personnel attend courses here in Australia and also courses conducted by the US Marine Corp to deepen their level of expertise, but until the LHD is in service and indeed, until both LHDs are in service, I really think that at the moment what level of capability we will be able to reach is probably speculative.

Senator CONROY: Do we have the infrastructure? It may be because it has not hit the water yet. It has hit the water but has not been completed. Do we have the infrastructure that surrounds these LHDs which would allow that level of specialisation? Are you confident where its specs are that you will be able to move in this direction?

Lt Gen. Morrison : Yes, without doubt.

Senator CONROY: When would you hope that the Amphibious Ready Group would be available for operations?

Lt Gen. Morrison : Again, I think that will be dependent on a variety of factors; firstly, bringing the ships into service and then there will be other elements of both the Army and the Navy that will need to be worked up to a level of capability. I would not like to give you a definitive time on that because there are so many variables that come into play, but it is certainly something that both Navy and Army, indeed the ADF, are working towards and I am confident that we will reach it in an acceptable time frame.

Vice Adm. Griggs : I can say that it will take around 12 months from the date the ship is delivered until we reach the initial operating capability. That is not the full operating capability. The initial operating capability will be about 12 months after delivery. We are anticipating delivery in late quarter 3 of this year, so late quarter 3 of next year would be the initial operating capability.

I think it is really important that people understand what is involved in getting to that point. First of all the ship's crew have to learn how to operate the ship. We then need to do the work with the organic landing craft, integrate them into the ship and do the trials that we need to do. Then we need to bring the aviation piece into play and relearn multi-spot deck operations. Then we need to bring 2 RAR into play and put it all together for the initial operating capability, so it is actually quite a complex process.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: It is on the water now, is it not?

Vice Adm. Griggs : Yes, but it has not been delivered to the Commonwealth.

Senator CONROY: They are still putting bits on each. I watch it grow each week.

Vice Adm. Griggs : The point I am trying to make is that as soon as it is commissioned, which will be shortly after it is delivered, there will be expectations that the ship will be able to go and do all of these things. It will not. It will take 12 months post-delivery before it is available to meet its initial operating capability.

Senator CONROY: General Morrison indicated that you really would not be able to get to the stage of that amphibious ready until we had both. Were you saying that you needed both?

Vice Adm. Griggs : You would need both ships for the Amphibious Ready Group, which is different to the Amphibious Ready Element.

Senator CONROY: Am I allowed to split a hair and ask what is the difference between the element and the group?

Vice Adm. Griggs : One is a company size.

Lt Gen. Morrison : I think that is certainly doable. The ARE, the Amphibious Ready Element, is a component part of the ARG, the Amphibious Ready Group. The ready group is made up of the whole battalion of around 600 to 700 personnel—

Senator CONROY: You need both for all of that to be ready?

Lt Gen. Morrison : plus its logistic elements or logistic support, helicopter support and whatever other assets would be made available to it for whatever the mission may be. The Amphibious Ready Element is a smaller part of the ARG. From a 2 RAR perspective it is based on one of the rifle companies that comprise the overall battalion. Of three rifle companies, this would be one of them and it would have smaller logistics elements in it with smaller helicopter assets and smaller enabling support. It is the ARE, of course, that we are aiming at first, as you would expect. As Chief of Navy has said, it is a very complex task getting this capability up and running.

Senator CONROY: How important is this capability to our strategic interests?

Lt Gen. Morrison : It has been a major feature of every white paper that I can recall certainly in the last 15 years. Australia is an island continent. It has a role in our region and our world and it affects military endeavours through a variety of means, but one of them is transit by sea in an amphibious way.

Senator CONROY: It sounds like not just over 15 years that you have indicated we have been seeking this capability. It sounds like there is an awful lot of normal, sensible processes being put in place to bring us up to speed.

Lt Gen. Morrison : Yes.

Senator CONROY: Are you looking forward to having a joint strike fighter plonked in the middle of it?

Lt Gen. Morrison : I think that all of the answers that you have been given from this side of the estimates table about joint strike fighters do not need any additions from me.

Senator CONROY: It sounds like it might get in the way of your group. It is not like you have asked for it. Air Marshal indicated they did not ask for it; Admiral Griggs has indicated that he has not asked for it and from the sound of it you have not asked for it. 'Abbott aims for aircraft carriers' is the headline. I am just trying to get an understanding of what is involved in that. Thank you for that. I am happy to pass over to someone else, Chair, if there is anyone else. I have more questions in this area but if someone else wanted to jump in; Senator MacDonald is always keen.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I have a couple of questions. I understand Senator Ludwig also raised some issues about the LHD, so please stop me if these have been asked. Admiral, you just mentioned the Adelaide is in the harbour in Melbourne?

Vice Adm. Griggs : Both ships are in Melbourne.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: But Adelaide has been steaming up for some months.

Vice Adm. Griggs : That was the Canberra. Canberra is the first one.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 09:21
by optimist
download the PDF it makes it easier to read. it does mention the f-35b
My case? too early? it's from 2014 and the discussion at the time with no one in the ADF saying they want it. . The matter has been since resolved to NO and excluded from the white paper.

The LHD and f-35b has been put to bed by ADF, what happens in the future who knows, but there is nothing in the 20 odd year future white paper

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 09:33
by weasel1962
Senator CONROY: So if we were to choose to proceed with the purchase of any B-variant JSFs as a fourth operational squadron they would likely come into service well after both of the current LHDs enter service. Is that correct?

Gen. Hurley : That would be correct.


The above nugget appears to suggest a 4th sqn replacement, if it happens, which is in the 2016 white paper. And as the 2016 white paper states is in the 2020s time-frame.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 09:40
by optimist
are you Aussie?
Johnson said the f-35b was considered from day one. AKA ..we never wanted it.
Of course the 4th or last 25 aircraft will be bought after the LHD. what is important is that there was nothing done to be able to put f-35b on them, in fact they even looked at removing the ski ramp during the build, but it would cost too much. There were concerns about swirling wind off of it and it would give another landing spot.

there should be a LHD and ospreys thread, at least there is a remote chance of getting a couple
Image

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 10:03
by weasel1962
Its not what Johnston says that needs to be considered. Its what Hurley, Griggs and Brown says. What is clear from the exchange is that there are many elements to a decision. Pre-2016, only some of these elements were addressed e.g. ship modifications which is what Griggs mentioned relating to 2009 white paper (which incidentally didn't say anything on the subject). The key elements especially force structure were clearly not reviewed before the 2016 white paper. I don't think that's indicative that a thorough consideration was already made pre-2016 in order to definitively state the ADF don't want it from day 1.

Those details/requirements raised by Gen Hurley particular are not things that get debated and cleared in a short period of time. Rather, I think it could take many years of study and the RAAF/ADF are not known for hasty decisions. I think the decision of what would equip the 4th squadron would provide a clearer picture.

P.s. not aussie but lived in Melbourne for a while (wife studied there).

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 10:18
by optimist
If they wanted it or even just the option for it, they would have had the LHD build compatible, as others of the class are. We didn't and could have easily made the wanted decision to remove the ski ramp. Something I now think would have been a good idea, if not for any other reason than threads like this.

Having a student wife in aussie, is close enough to aussie :wink: It's a genuine interest, without the native nuances of how the system works

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 10:35
by spazsinbad
'optimist' has the most amazing comprehension of simple English: [& has typed a silly response to 'remove ski jump'.]
'optimist' said: "...Johnson said the f-35b was considered from day one. AKA ..we never wanted it. [HOW DOES THAT FOLLOW?] Of course the 4th or last 25 aircraft will be bought after the LHD. what is important is that there was nothing done to be able to put f-35b on them, in fact they even looked at removing the ski ramp during the build, but it would cost too much. There were concerns about swirling wind off of it and it would give another landing spot.…" [another bad meme]

Right from the LHD getgo the ramps were NOT removed to save money because of RE-Design issues required that COST MONEY. I have an apocryphal story about that - did not make the PDF sadly (I think - I'll check)…. Anyhoo the 'swirling winds' are known and modelled and then tested in real world situations by AMAFTU helo test pilots in various helos to produce a SHOL diagram - get with NavAv please. As for 'another landing spot' already helos land on the spot where the ramp starts upward. Check the diagrams. See page 30 of the downloaded PDF cited to read this: [other articles mention also WHY the ski jump was not removed however I'll let you find them - search is your friend]
REMOVE SKI JUMP from LHDs
by MarkLBailey (19-Oct-2012) http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... ugust-2012

“Without revealing anything I should not, I was present in 2002 at Puckapunyal when the modelling was done to recommend either the Spanish or the French design. During the process, the question was asked if Treasury & Finance would provide additional funds to remove the fixed-wing capable light carrier elements of the Navantia design (ski jump, certain magazines and elevators, certain other systems, some weight and space).

The answer was an emphatic no. All the systems were dual use. To my knowledge, none were removed or not installed. Therefore she is perfectly capable of operating something like SHAR or STOVL F-35, although undoubtedly additional kit would be needed (hence the weight and space mentioned above).

The Navy guys were so delighted with the Treasury response they were too terrified even to move a muscle. It was as funny as hell to watch. Cheers: mark”

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 12:26
by optimist
Fire fighting for the extra spot was also going to cost a mint to redesign. but that is also another story. The bottom line was the cost to remove it was too great for any purpose it would serve. The ship would have to have too much redesign and testing for the removed weight. It came down to a cost benefit issue. No one is or was paying me to know this stuff, It's stuff I picked up. I don't know why I'm getting hooked into a retired RAN pilots wishful thinking, who's like a dog with a bone.

weasly, you are wasting your time on this thread, go and read old threads and ask on defence talk, https://www.defencetalk.com/military/fo ... ritime.22/
everything has been argued to death there by people who know. There isn't anyone on this thread with even an unclass briefing on the subject, let alone a classified one and in the ADF/DMO with the decisions.

There is enough in that link to the parliament to show that they thought abbot was on the wrong track, They are going to be polite and diplomatic, although this was felt to be needed to say, when it got too willing. Page 107 was the lead up to this.
Senator Johnston: I think you might concede the Prime Minister is interested in exploring options. He wants a versatile, capable ADF and there is no harm in exploring with the experts what the options are. I think that is perfectly normal and natural and he should certainly not be criticised for it.

go and read what the said about the kopp and goon idiots. They kept it very professional.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 18:48
by spazsinbad
Nevertheless here is 'optimist' - the expert - qualifications unknown - telling us 'how it is' - with vague references. Cool.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2019, 02:23
by spazsinbad
OMG! - an oldie but goldie from FARLEY from the not so distant past FEB 2017. Good grief: where will this debate END?!
Room for Maneuver in Australia's Naval Aviation Plans? [Read it all at the URL - 'optimists' are mentioned]
08 Feb 2017 Robert Farley

"Australia’s longstanding procurement plans may merit reconsideration.
How deeply are Australia’s naval aviation acquisition plans set in stone? With the F-35A on the verge of appearing at the Avalon Air Show [Feb 2017 - this year also soon], debate over the appropriate version of the Joint Strike Fighter continues.

Australia is purchasing the F-35, and Australia has already acquired two aircraft carriers [Wait WUT?! Nope LHDs] capable (with modifications) of operating the F-35B. Two years ago, the government conducted a study to examine the potential for purchasing the F-35B and modifying the two Canberra-class amphibs (built in Spain to the same design as the Juan Carlos I), but eventually rejected the proposal as too costly, and too detrimental to other naval objectives.

But the debate continues, and as Australia’s strategic situation seems to be in flux... longstanding procurement plans may merit reconsideration.

The pro-F-35B case rests on several prongs. First, the Canberra-class can, with the appropriate modifications, operate the F-35B. This would give the RAN some capabilities that it has not possessed since the 1980s. Moreover, the F-35B is, because of its sensor and communications capabilities, uniquely appropriate for operating off light carriers [LHDs boyo] such as the Canberra. Finally, with its ability to operate from small and unprepared airfields, the F-35B potentially offers more operational flexibility than its cousin (although this depends on the ability of the RAAF to manage the logistical difficulties of the complex, sophisticated aircraft).

The case against the F-35B boils down to a few points; it is more technologically complex, has a shorter range, can carry less payload, and is more expensive than the F-35A. A corollary to this is that, if Australia purchases the F-35A, people will stop proposing converting the Canberra-class amphibs into light carriers, [hmmmm] which would substantially detract from their original purpose as amphibious warfare vessels...."

Source: https://thediplomat.com/2017/02/room-fo ... ion-plans/

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2019, 02:52
by steve2267
spazsinbad wrote:
Room for Maneuver in Australia's Naval Aviation Plans? [Read it all at the URL - 'optimists' are mentioned]
08 Feb 2017 Robert Farley

"Australia’s longstanding procurement plans may merit reconsideration.

<snip>

The case against the F-35B boils down to a few points; it is more technologically complex, has a shorter range, can carry less payload, and is more expensive than the F-35A. A corollary to this is that, [b]if Australia purchases the F-35A, people will stop proposing converting the Canberra-class amphibs into light carriers[/b], [hmmmm] which would substantially detract from their original purpose as amphibious warfare vessels...."

Source: https://thediplomat.com/2017/02/room-fo ... ion-plans/


More technologically complex? I would agree the Killer Bee is more mechanically complex than the Model A, but not technologically.

Ummm... if Australia purchaes the F-35A? I realize this was written in Feb 2017, but hadn't Australia already purchased its first Lightnings? If not, they were a partner nation, and were up to their neck in the program... that statement appears rather poorly written.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2019, 03:28
by spazsinbad
Agree, however author have have been referring to the last tranche of some 24-26 or so F-35s - you may recall not known.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2019, 03:50
by weasel1962
Won't stop the calls. Even if Australia buys 100 F-35As, doesn't mean it can't buy a few more Bs....

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2019, 10:58
by marsavian
If this happens it will probably been done in the Canberra class MLU when all the F-35A have been bought and any extra F-35B will be seen as additive rather than subtractive to the F-35 fleet by the Air Force. The case for having a skeleton squadron of about 6 just for surface ship fleet defence is pretty strong despite any cost. How much more costly would it be if ships got sink and men got lost and what about CAS for embarked soldiers ? At the moment these Canberras will rely on either home F-35A cover or NATO air cover on foreign missions. It does restrict their ubiquitous nature in some way.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 00:41
by optimist
spazsinbad wrote:OMG! - an oldie but goldie from FARLEY from the not so distant past FEB 2017. Good grief: where will this debate END?!
Room for Maneuver in Australia's Naval Aviation Plans? [Read it all at the URL - 'optimists' are mentioned]
08 Feb 2017 Robert Farley

"Australia’s longstanding procurement plans may merit reconsideration.
How deeply are Australia’s naval aviation acquisition plans set in stone? With the F-35A on the verge of appearing at the Avalon Air Show [Feb 2017 - this year also soon], debate over the appropriate version of the Joint Strike Fighter continues.

Australia is purchasing the F-35, and Australia has already acquired two aircraft carriers [Wait WUT?! Nope LHDs] capable (with modifications) of operating the F-35B. Two years ago, the government conducted a study to examine the potential for purchasing the F-35B and modifying the two Canberra-class amphibs (built in Spain to the same design as the Juan Carlos I), but eventually rejected the proposal as too costly, and too detrimental to other naval objectives.

But the debate continues, and as Australia’s strategic situation seems to be in flux... longstanding procurement plans may merit reconsideration.

The pro-F-35B case rests on several prongs. First, the Canberra-class can, with the appropriate modifications, operate the F-35B. This would give the RAN some capabilities that it has not possessed since the 1980s. Moreover, the F-35B is, because of its sensor and communications capabilities, uniquely appropriate for operating off light carriers [LHDs boyo] such as the Canberra. Finally, with its ability to operate from small and unprepared airfields, the F-35B potentially offers more operational flexibility than its cousin (although this depends on the ability of the RAAF to manage the logistical difficulties of the complex, sophisticated aircraft).

The case against the F-35B boils down to a few points; it is more technologically complex, has a shorter range, can carry less payload, and is more expensive than the F-35A. A corollary to this is that, if Australia purchases the F-35A, people will stop proposing converting the Canberra-class amphibs into light carriers, [hmmmm] which would substantially detract from their original purpose as amphibious warfare vessels...."

Source: https://thediplomat.com/2017/02/room-fo ... ion-plans/

That's better, copy paste every blogger you can find. What are the Kopp, Goon and Co think tanks saying? There are a few of them. They should provide fodder for years to come.

It's just not a good idea to use the 2014 Abbott brain fart, as some sort of justification. The ADF response to it and the rejection from inclusion in the white paper. Shows that the ADF and gov had finished with it.

Re: F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft car

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 01:08
by spazsinbad
I'm pleased at your response - at least you read stuff and that is my intention to 'read stuff' and decide for myself. Then...
Looking Back at the RAAF and its F-35 Turning Point: The Perspective of Air Marshal (Retired) Geoff Brown
15 Feb 2019 Robbin Laird

"...[AM Brown (rtd)] “Transitioning to a fifth generation fighter will challenge us to step outside our comfort zones and question past habits [providing Fleet Air Defence?]. The RAAF will partner and work closely not only with our sister services – the Royal Australian Navy and the Australian Army – but also with the USAF, USN, and USMC to learn, leverage and exploit those intrinsic 5th generation opportunities.”...

Question: Revisiting the strategic decision point about moving on from Super Hornet to F-35, 9what was your thinking?
Air Marshal (Retired) Brown: If you don’t have the best fighter as a foundational element for your force to maintain air superiority, it calls into question your overall capabilities as an Air Force. “To ensure air superiority you are then going to have to rely on someone else, and if they don’t show up, you don’t have it. “You self select to be a secondary player. “And as I look back at the history of the RAAF that has happened in our history and it has not been a pleasant national experience...."

Source: https://defense.info/featured-story/201 ... off-brown/