
weasel1962 wrote:Just wanted to make a few points on the article posted by Spaz and the follow on article by defenceconnect.spazsinbad wrote:Source: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/shoul ... 35-to-sea/
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/marit ... ft-carrier"The introduction of these capabilities is incredibly costly, not only with the refit of ships themselves, you then have to include the cost of the aircraft, the crews, maintenance, sustainment and support and escort vessels," Davis said.
1. No vessel, not even the Gerald Ford CVNs carry enough fuel to generate carrier sorties continuously. That's what AORs are for and that's what RAN already has.
2. Conversion works can probably be done in Australia which would be a boon to local shipbuilding.
3. RAAF has already committed to 100 F-35As with its attendant crews and the LHDs are operating hence the maintenance and sustainment costs are already committed and the AAW DDGs are more than capable escort vessels. The carrier capability should be seen as an incremental cost and not a completely whole new cost which seems to be suggested.
Just a slight correction, sorry.
Australia has committed to 72x F-35A’s. There is indicative planning for up to 28 more to achieve the ‘magical number’ of 100 fighters, but no decision has been made as yet and with Super Hornet upgrades on the horizon and RAAF having more than enough work to do to fully introduce it’s existing 72 fighters and all related elements into service and then reach IOC and FOC, there is plenty of time before any further decisions have to be made.
RAAF ‘may’ get 100x F-35A fighters. Or it ‘will’ get 72x F-35A fighters and ‘may’ get up to 28x ‘something else’. Only time will tell at this point.