F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

[.... I'm curious as to why the Spanish design was selected over the Mistral class, which is a good deal cheaper and has all the capabilities you intend to use.

..it doesn't have the sexy ski-jump!

Both this and the remarkably long thread on the ADF LHDs have some interesting comments. Spaz, your source on the internal configuration of the ships is incorrect, as the mods are very minimal. The biggest was to the sickbay, and there was/is no degradation of aviation support spaces in any compartments. Modifying them for F-35Bs would be a minor matter, done during scheduled refit without excessive time considerations. Re-establishing embarked fixed wing, however, would require long lead times. Finally, I have no idea whatever of where your comments about the RN CVFs being denied to the ADF came from, nor that they will never deploy east of Suez. Your first point would raise innumerable eyebrows at Russell Hill, I assure you. Also, the old Invincibles in Sea Harrier days visited Australia six times, and they did all sorts of noisy work in the Gulf, and there is no reason to think that the new ships won't follow that pattern. All said and done, there is no consideration at any level in Canberra for even thinking about putting fast air back to sea in the ADF, let alone asking for a position paper, or, indeed anything else.

Perhaps you have not read through the 'very long thread' enough. My other comments were tongue-in-cheek if not downright cheeky but in the context of this forum 'funny' enough. Anyways the VLT is here:

Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12631.html

I'm not privy to any internal LHD details whilst eventually having to accept the comments of 'someone from somewhere' claiming to know. I do NOT claim to know NOR care at this point. What will be will be. IF you find the VLT too much then by all means start a new thread about how easy it will be (apart from the long lead time and no perceived interest - you say) for F-35Bs to operate from our Oz new LHDs. Please provide more details as you will gather by reading the VLT (OK you can skim a lot of the repetiitive nature of it) that I myself have a keen interest.

'East of Suez' is a term coined by the UK specifically used by Sharkey Ward to forewarn that the F-35B he knows (not the one I claim to know) will not be able to perform a KPP VL in that region. This term crops up in the:

UK MOD in a MUDDLE over F-35C
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... uddle.html

Searching for 'Suez' will get a hit here:
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... uez#223139

I have respect for the Sharkey Ward during his Falklands War times but these days it seems he has gone senile as illustrated by the 'birther movement' reposts on his website. YouseMMV (YMMV).

Interesting factoid indeed that the 'through deck cruisers' visited Oz 6 times.

'1st503rdsgt' said: "In that case, I'm curious as to why the Spanish design was selected over the Mistral class, which is a good deal cheaper and has all the capabilities you intend to use." Care to provide details please? Thanks.

'1st503rdsgt' said: "In that case, I'm curious as to why the Spanish design was selected over the Mistral class, which is a good deal cheaper and has all the capabilities you intend to use." Care to provide details please? Thanks.

These are all the details I see that matter.

Mistral has:

-A large flight deck

-A hanger

-A well deck

The basics are there. I'm not really sure what shortcomings it had to get passed-over in favor of the Juan Carlos.

How much cheaper is Mistral compared to LHD?

My only recourse for the other commonalities would be an internet search via Google.

How much cheaper is Mistral compared to LHD?

My only recourse for the other commonalities would be an internet search via Google.

My understanding is that the Canberras are about $1.5bil a piece (don't know if that's US or not). The Mistrals are about $400-600mil per copy.

I read somewhere that the Mistrals are cheap because they're only built to commercial standards and might not last as long as a typical warship that size, but I don't really know. Maybe it couldn't handle Chinooks.

Why do you have a concern now what it is? Please explain.

Why do you have a concern now what it is? Please explain.

It's not concern, it's confusion.

If you're planning to buy an amphibious assault ship that is "absolutely, positively, immutably" NEVER going to have its own fixed-wing component... why not go with the much cheaper boat that has the basics of what you DO want?

Why do you have a concern now what it is? Please explain.

It's not concern, it's confusion.

If you're planning to buy an amphibious assault ship that is "absolutely, positively, immutably" NEVER going to have its own fixed-wing component... why not go with the much cheaper boat that has the basics of what you DO want?

So, you are wondering if they are trying to sneak in STOVL capability?

Sorry I have no idea. There will be official explanations on government websites about why the LHD was chosen over the Mistral but from memory details were scarce. If you are looking for some 'long term conspiracy' about having F-35Bs on LHDs then there are hints (or speculation) in the public media. AFAIK these are in the VLT already. I'm only a civilian with no inside knowledge of whys and wherefores except whatever is in the public domain. However 'jungle drums' tell me that of course there is an interest in F-35Bs and that also is in the VLT. For myself I'm tired of it though. My interest will be when there is more public speculation in OzLand about such matters. I predict when we see LHAs in our waters as mentioned many times now already - even. Missed it by that much.

Here's an interesting little piece. Given the global economic crisis (especially in Europe); and in light of the fact that STOVL carriers are dependant on an out-of-production jet for their fixed-wing component, the author is demanding that Boeing "dust off" AV-8B plans in order to "spoil the F-35B’s fruit..." his rationale being that "ANY DAMAGE OR FURTHER INSECURITY YOU [Boeing] CAN CAUSE THE F-35 PROGRAM IS A WIN FOR YOU [Boeing]" (his caps, not mine).

http://aviationintel.com/2012/01/10/ita ... is-boeing/

Here's the video he was trying to post. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7tMVnPR ... r_embedded

Given that Boeing is counting on prospective customers to fund further development of the F-15SE and F-18SH "International" variant - unsuccessfully so far - it's not likely they would spend money on an updated Harrier w/o a firm customer commitment.

Given that Boeing is counting on prospective customers to fund further development of the F-15SE and F-18SH "International" variant - unsuccessfully so far - it's not likely they would spend money on an updated Harrier w/o a firm customer commitment.

Agreed. Plus, I doubt the AV-8B would entice more countries into carrier aviation, as one hopes the F-35B might.

'East of Suez' is a term coined by the UK specifically used by Sharkey Ward to forewarn that the F-35B he knows (not the one I claim to know) will not be able to perform a KPP VL in that region.

Luckily there really is no scenario that they would be involved in that required only the assets on a QE/PoW type of carrier. They will have land based assets and the aid of the USN CVN's in any major regional conflict.

'East of Suez' is a term coined by the UK specifically used by Sharkey Ward to forewarn that the F-35B he knows (not the one I claim to know) will not be able to perform a KPP VL in that region.

Luckily there really is no scenario that they would be involved in that required only the assets on a QE/PoW type of carrier. They will have land based assets and the aid of the USN CVN's in any major regional conflict.

There are scenarios for everything, a number of which the US would prefer to stay clear of, if only for political reasons. For example, if a situation in the mid-east were to call for a NATO maritime aviation presence, it might be less provocative for the region if French, British, and Italian carriers handled it (provided things don't get too intense).