Does Australia need an aircraft carrier?

[swerve]

... The French one is rather chunky and im not sure whether its developed well for the F35. ...

It isn't. As delivered to the MN, it has no provision for VTOL aircraft or changes to permit their use. Would need design changes. AFAIK, the Australian RfP didn't specify F-35B capability, so I doubt they've added it to the proposed ship.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hmm, i thought they wanted the MRH-90? Nothing wrong with it, good speed and design, no stigma like the blackhawk, which carries a dark history in Aus.

I'd prefer the BPE, as the other choice is....sigh...:ar15 :france

Anyway, like i said early, if they do go with BPE,u can expect the whoo ha about F-35B to start. The only thing holding back the BPE is that it won't be complete till after the tender has been selected, But by the time that if selected, we complete the LHD, trials would be complete and any issues would be worked out. Kinda like getting the bugs out of a new car.

Nope Army most definitely did NOT want MRH-90 but rather UH-60M. Yes Blackhawks have been involved in the worst military tragedies in our history, but it was our fault for not upgrading them properly and trying to operate them as our SOAR brethren do.

Not that I'm suggesting we "deserved" it to happen. It is of course an utter tragedy, but WE were to blame for it. Not the aircraft itself...

Anyhoo back on topic, I agree about the BPE. Former Defmin HILL refused to rule out an acquisition of F-35B's "down the track" and if RAN goes with the BPE, I'd again bet Airforce would push for a squadron of so of "B's" for the added land based flexibility of course... :rotfl

 

[contedicavour]

It isn't. As delivered to the MN, it has no provision for VTOL aircraft or changes to permit their use. Would need design changes. AFAIK, the Australian RfP didn't specify F-35B capability, so I doubt they've added it to the proposed ship.

The French Navy uses Rafale and Super Etendard aircrafts and has never had interest in STOVL aircrafts. So no surprise here, Mistrals were built only for helicopters. Changes would have to be radical indeed to operate F35Bs. The Australian Defence ministry may not have specified this request, but I guess the point will come up anyway !
Btw, a related question, how many JSFs/F35s the Australian Air Force has planned to buy ? Should they replace F111s and F18s ? Which variant of the F35 is requested, the F35B STOVL ?

cheers

 

[abramsteve]

The French Navy uses Rafale and Super Etendard aircrafts and has never had interest in STOVL aircrafts. So no surprise here, Mistrals were built only for helicopters. Changes would have to be radical indeed to operate F35Bs. The Australian Defence ministry may not have specified this request, but I guess the point will come up anyway !
Btw, a related question, how many JSFs/F35s the Australian Air Force has planned to buy ? Should they replace F111s and F18s ? Which variant of the F35 is requested, the F35B STOVL ?

cheers

A dangerous question to ask bout the F-111/F-18 replacment by the F-35!

I believe that around 100 will be aquired, but of course its a figure which is always open to debate. If the French design canot be modified then it should not be considered. Even if we don't decide to purchase the 'B' closing door on a future option is a rediculous thing to do.

 

[swerve]

The French Navy uses Rafale and Super Etendard aircrafts and has never had interest in STOVL aircrafts. So no surprise here, Mistrals were built only for helicopters. Changes would have to be radical indeed to operate F35Bs. ... Which variant of the F35 is requested, the F35B STOVL ?

cheers

Oh yes, perfectly logical for France.

So far, Australia is only planning F-35A, but there have been murmurings about some F-35B as well, mostly connected with the LHDs. But F-35B capability was not part of the specification issued to the bidders for the LHDs.

 

[icelord]

Nope Army most definitely did NOT want MRH-90 but rather UH-60M. Yes Blackhawks have been involved in the worst military tragedies in our history, but it was our fault for not upgrading them properly and trying to operate them as our SOAR brethren do.

Not that I'm suggesting we "deserved" it to happen. It is of course an utter tragedy, but WE were to blame for it. Not the aircraft itself...

Anyhoo back on topic, I agree about the BPE. Former Defmin HILL refused to rule out an acquisition of F-35B's "down the track" and if RAN goes with the BPE, I'd again bet Airforce would push for a squadron of so of "B's" for the added land based flexibility of course... :rotfl

If i recall correctly, which i rarely do, sikorsky offered a counter to the 12 MRH-90 of around 50 UH-60s, for a little bit more, hell, we'd stuggle to get the pilots.

 

[Pusser01]

Don't forget the beam when discussing size of a ship, a larger beam along the length of a ship can make a big difference in displacement. Its amazing how much 5 meters of more beam can increase the displacement.

The new Japanese destroyer flat top doesn't have a vehicle deck and well dock, items which Australia required. The new Italian large flat top doesn't have a well dock, therefore, it didn't meet Australian requirements either. Currently the only two ships which meet the Australian requirements are being considered, the Spanish and French LHD designs.

How would the South Korean LPX Dokdo have gone had it been available for selection at the time? It is a little bit smaller than the Navantia design at only 200x32x6.5. Its carrying capacity is listed as 10 helos, 700 troops, 10 tanks & 2 LCACs. I wonder if it was even considered.
Cheers

 

[Markus40]

The question of the replacement isnt an easy one based on the functionality of the F111. I think the Australian government will find the F35 a good replacement and upgrade for the F18 but its not so clear cut for the F111.

The F111 is unique because there isnt a good replacement for it around these days and is still a good work horse for the RAAF. I under stand that Kim Beazly was interested in replacing them for the F22 but the F22 would lack the weapons load and perhaps the range. I really dont think the F35 is a good alround replacement for the F111 and F18. Only the F18. I think the closest option would be the tired B1B Lancer. But this isnt a good option as none are being built any more. Maybe a few B2 Spirits?

A dangerous question to ask bout the F-111/F-18 replacment by the F-35!

I believe that around 100 will be aquired, but of course its a figure which is always open to debate. If the French design canot be modified then it should not be considered. Even if we don't decide to purchase the 'B' closing door on a future option is a rediculous thing to do.

 

[icelord]

The F111 is unique because there isnt a good replacement for it around these days and is still a good work horse for the RAAF. I under stand that Kim Beazly was interested in replacing them for the F22 but the F22 would lack the weapons load and perhaps the range.

Yeah well Bomber Beazley would know, he did sign off on the collins class and Kanmibla/manoora purchase:roll2 To even evaluate would cost to much, the price tag on the F-22 is quite a bit, theres problems now with our investment in the F-35 being to expensive, and this is more to buy!
I think the F-22 would not be capable of replacing the F-111 as its got no where near the range and load capacity, plus you can't replace a classic, you can only try to out do it, and not many can.

I really dont think the F35 is a good alround replacement for the F111 and F18. Only the F18. I think the closest option would be the tired B1B Lancer. But this isnt a good option as none are being built any more. Maybe a few B2 Spirits?

Not sure bout B2, i think again the price tag would be pushing it a bit, and plus, would the US sell it?The B2 is almost a Billion each, and thats without the facitlity upgrades and longer life upgrades. The B1b, i'd say money would be another issue, but other then that, it would be good

 

[Sea Toby]

How did this thread get hijacked from aircraft carriers to air force F-111 replacement?

Unless Australia decides to build new F-111s to replace their old ones, there is no replacement. None of the other aircraft have the qualities of long range and bomb load, not even the F-22.
Siince there is no replacement for a F-111, it is history. Concentrate on what can be replaced.

While the Australian government is interested in buying the F-35s, there is no guarantee the government will do so if the price of the F-35 continues to increase.

Its very possible the government may choose another aircraft, such as the Super Hornet instead, at least the Super Hornet's price is confirmed.

Therefore, its very premature to discuss whether Australia will use F-35Bs for usage on the LHDs.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yeah well Bomber Beazley would know, he did sign off on the collins class and Kanmibla/manoora purchase:roll2 To even evaluate would cost to much, the price tag on the F-22 is quite a bit, theres problems now with our investment in the F-35 being to expensive, and this is more to buy!
I think the F-22 would not be capable of replacing the F-111 as its got no where near the range and load capacity, plus you can't replace a classic, you can only try to out do it, and not many can.



Not sure bout B2, i think again the price tag would be pushing it a bit, and plus, would the US sell it?The B2 is almost a Billion each, and thats without the facitlity upgrades and longer life upgrades. The B1b, i'd say money would be another issue, but other then that, it would be good

The B2 hasn't been in production for over 10 years and cost approx US$1b a piece, 5-7 of them would break our AIR-6000 budget...

The F-35A is the most reasonable F-111/F-18 replacement in my view. Particularly when equipped with long range standoff weapons such as JASSM and A2A refuellers providing support.

The reason for this is that there is NO direct replacement for the F-111. Our best chance to increase our combat capability (that is affordable and likely to be sold to us) is the JSF which is designed as a low observable aircraft from the outset and is designed to provide a significant enhancement in capability over the F-16/F/A-18 series fighters in A2A and A2G, plus offer a significant range enhancement too.

When weapons such as JASSM-ER are currently being designed with it's 950K + range in the same size missile as the existing JASSM, why is extreme range in a "tactical" aircraft so important anymore???

RAAF intends to operate 4x operational squadrons, (1, 3, 75 and 77 Sqn's) plus an "Operational Conversion Unit" (2nd OCU) and have a number of "spares" for attrition and research and development (ARDU). Adding these numbers together gets you to "about 100" aircraft...

RAAF has no dedicated plan to acquire F-35B's, but it hasn't officially ruled them out either. Even Defmin HILL refused to do so, so it's at least a "possibility"...

 

[icelord]

RAAF intends to operate 4x operational squadrons, (1, 3, 75 and 77 Sqn's) plus an "Operational Conversion Unit" (2nd OCU) and have a number of "spares" for attrition and research and development (ARDU). Adding these numbers together gets you to "about 100" aircraft...

There is also the problem that if the delays take any longer, their will be a gap between swap overs, although the F-111 is being withdrawn 2010 and replaced 2014...go fig. The delays will according to some, drop the order to 80, but i doubt it. If it does, it may leave money around for 20 F-35Bs. But, we need need to buy the BPE first. Plus, i thought the F-35 was basically harrier replacement, usable like in the falklands where they launched off a cargo ship. In that theory, all we need is a LHD, so either way...

Also, we got hijacked on the F-111 thing to backstory an argument for the F-35B, and then got sidetracked while there.

 

[swerve]

Plus, i thought the F-35 was basically harrier replacement, usable like in the falklands where they launched off a cargo ship. In that theory, all we need is a LHD, so either way...

Harriers didn't take off from cargo ships to fly combat missions in the Falklands war. VTOL means taking off light. Can't be done with full fuel. Cargo ships were used to ship out more Harriers than could fit on the carriers. With overcrowded carriers, excess Harriers were parked, lightly fuelled, on freighters. They'd fly back to the carrier for fuelling & arming before combat, & then, as usual, do a rolling take-off.

F-35B could do the same. But it is not practical to operate it in VTO mode in combat, except for missions where it can be both lightly armed & with a light fuel load, which is too restrictive for most purposes.

 

[contedicavour]

Harriers didn't take off from cargo ships to fly combat missions in the Falklands war. VTOL means taking off light. Can't be done with full fuel. Cargo ships were used to ship out more Harriers than could fit on the carriers. With overcrowded carriers, excess Harriers were parked, lightly fuelled, on freighters. They'd fly back to the carrier for fuelling & arming before combat, & then, as usual, do a rolling take-off.

F-35B could do the same. But it is not practical to operate it in VTO mode in combat, except for missions where it can be both lightly armed & with a light fuel load, which is too restrictive for most purposes.

Agree. To build on that, Harriers taking off vertically can only carry a coupe of Sidewinders and Amraams and a fuel load sufficient for approx 100 NM round trip with no time for combat air patrol. Really only an emergency air-to-air mission. Besides, no ship other than a carrier has the facilities to refuel and rearm. That's why we don't operate Harriers from the 3 LPDH despite the fact that they have a continuous flight deck 133 meters long.

cheers

 

[Cootamundra]

Harriers didn't take off from cargo ships to fly combat missions in the Falklands war. VTOL means taking off light. Can't be done with full fuel. Cargo ships were used to ship out more Harriers than could fit on the carriers. With overcrowded carriers, excess Harriers were parked, lightly fuelled, on freighters. They'd fly back to the carrier for fuelling & arming before combat, & then, as usual, do a rolling take-off.

F-35B could do the same. But it is not practical to operate it in VTO mode in combat, except for missions where it can be both lightly armed & with a light fuel load, which is too restrictive for most purposes.

You know I never even thought of that Swerve although now you mention it makes complete sense. F-35Bs for AUS remain pretty unlikely I reckon, as much as I would like to the SPS I think the Mistral will get the go-ahead as it is already sailing and proven tech, ADF procurement continues to have some bad experiences wrt to 'Australianised requirements' and 'cutting edge tech', Navantia's SPS falls into these categories more than the Mistral. Again, my preference would be the SPS purely because of the potential for future capabilities, for example f-35Bs, which we don't need now but could always install at a later date if our strategic environment altered dramatically.

 

[icelord]

You know I never even thought of that Swerve although now you mention it makes complete sense. F-35Bs for AUS remain pretty unlikely I reckon, as much as I would like to the SPS I think the Mistral will get the go-ahead as it is already sailing and proven tech, ADF procurement continues to have some bad experiences wrt to 'Australianised requirements' and 'cutting edge tech', Navantia's SPS falls into these categories more than the Mistral. Again, my preference would be the SPS purely because of the potential for future capabilities, for example f-35Bs, which we don't need now but could always install at a later date if our strategic environment altered dramatically.

Fair point, cept that somethin swerve said made sense j/k
The BPE/SPS/DVD/GPS/PS3....the spanish 1, would be best as u mentioned, future capabilities change. And on "australianised requirments" we've still got problems with the damn seasprite...wonder if they'll fly off the LHD, as ANZAC don't really need/want them.