As far as research, analysis, and presentation go, this is probably the most intelligent military channel I've come across. (Also Dung Tran's isn't too shabby either)
Agree mate, it is very methodical and clear how he came to conclusions. Whilst many others you can tell they just read from wiki, used Google, or just rehashed from official places that tend to have a strong bias one way or another. Ie America military channels I found tend to have a focus on we are the best, and no focus on the areas their military asserts may lack in. Ie videos such as the patriot missile system is superior to the s400 and alike without really breaking down the facts about why its superior.
@@mcelroychandler6267 @MCELROY CHANDLER I beg to differ, at least partially. He made an entire video about the F-36 with straigh-up doesn't exist, not even as a prototype or blueprint. USAF was doing a case study on if designing and fielding such a plane was feasible, but that got blown out of proportion, and people think they're actually pursuing a fighter. He also made a video stating that the UK is losing interest in the F-35B and cutting procurement substantially. There was a more recent update that procurement will likely be much more than the publicized 48 (down from 138). He stated that the UK is diverting support to the Tempest, which makes no sense because Tempest also doesn't exist yet and is more than a decade away. Also the F-35B is the only carrier-capable fighter the UK has. As honest as he is, he didn't seem to delve much deeper than a news article. Most other videos, he was much more comprehensive.
12 F 35b's might not be enough, but 12 paired with a contingent of 3-4 loyal wingmen per plane, you suddenly have a massive capability. Those loyal wingmen take up way less room too.
Much lighter, much cheaper, and no aircrew risk, all with the same performance as a fighter. Can easily see them partnered with both air to air refueling drones and AWACS drones in future too to extend range and loitering times with the fleet kept at a safe distance.
@@benharris211 They are at the moment but how long before defence departments worldwide realise the benefits of adapting them for naval use? It's only a matter of time. Drone warfare along with some level of human element on land air and sea is the way of the future. eventually.
@@benharris211 they are, but they are also light as, so they could launch off ski-ramp LHDs without having to invest in big catapult systems (although a small - 5 to 10KW EMALS cat on the starboard side in front of the forward lift might be a viable modification if required). Light arrestor wire recovery systems could also be installed on the LHDs without too much drama. Embarking a squadron of F35s, but a dozen maritime variants of the loyal wingman could see the 24/7 CAP function undertaken by a single F35 (rotating on a 3-4 hr patrol basis) with 4 or so Wingman paired to that single manned plane, with the other aviation assets on standby to help put the stick about if required. The F35 is a force multiplier. The loyal wingman is an autonomous platform, but without the F35s big brain. It’s meant to team with manned platforms. This may change over the next 30 years though. Especially when quantum computing takes AI to another level.
Even if Australia didn't buy its own F-35Bs, making the ships capable of supporting F-35B operations could be a big advantage: in the event of a large conflict, the US Marines or Royal Navy could forward deploy F-35Bs to operate from the Australian ships to provide CAP and a light strike capability while repositioning their full Carrier Strike Groups.
@@tylerclayton6081 I mean we helped but the Aussies were pretty good on their own. Tbf McArthur was a jackass and not only minimized their actions but left them to dry a few times. But hey, it's what happens when a propaganda officer gets command over a theater of war. He probably heard theater and misunderstood. Edit: this channel actually has a great video over the Pacific theater that really shows how much work they put in and how they got screwed.
As a Canadian I'm really jealous of your navy. You guys do so much right in terms of procurement, the Australian navy is everything a small nation navy should be.
I'm a retired infantry officer in the IDF, now living in Oz. I think this is a brilliant job that you have done. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you have presented here.
Thankyou my friend, I appreciate the positivity from someone who knows what they are talking about. I hope you are enjoying life in Australia, I had a few friends in Sydney who were ex IDF.
By far the best analysis. I would add that two Australian F-35B carriers would enable the formation of a joint Aus-US battlegroup consisting of one of the USS Wasp or America-class F-35B carriers and one of the Australian F-35B carriers.
@@chuckhooks6621 Hell the US could just use the LHD's as temporary carriers. Shuttle them between RAN and Japanese Navy carriers depending on where they're needed.
Well done mate. Excellent piece of analysis. Agree wholeheartedly. Having served in a number of regional hotspots nothing would've boosted morale faster and further than the knowledge that an Australian F35B was sitting on a ship within a few minutes flying time from our location. F18s sitting on an airfield in Tindall weren't much help to a patrol in Timor's Mount LeoLaco in 1999.
Whenever you say stats like tonnage, speed, fuel capacity, sorty rate - maybe put them on the screen as text - easier to think about, especially when you were comparing two ships/aircraft
I applaud you for posting these videos and your thought process and assumptions are very well reasoned. I’m a former officer in the ADF and was involved in Force Development (Aerospace) in the 1990s and worked on the AIR5333 project as well as AIR87. One of the biggest issues we faced was always the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and even though the Project Team’s recommendations may have been for a particular platform that fitted our needs the best, this could be overwritten by the thoughts of a particular Director General who might prefer one option over the other, or in the case of the RAN, who often did their own thing, a Project Manager who wrote requirements specifically so they favoured a supplier they liked the most, especially if they saw the possibility of a lucrative future with that supplier once they left the ADF, often in deference for the needs of the ADF as a whole. The other thing that often happens is that the Parliamentary committee would decide on a platform with promised capability, rather than proven capability, as long as the offsets etc were better and suited their domestic political needs. The Tiger is a prime example. Had the preferences of the AIR87 Team at the Russell Offices been taken into consideration, there would have been AH-64Ds being ordered instead. In the end, the Project Team will short list the best options, and give their reasons as to why they prefer a particular type over another, but the Civilian Committee can select any of the types that make the short list, as long as they make that list. It seems though, that the threat of the PRC becoming expeditionary has changed some thinking, since the AH-64E was selected in a hurry, and is the right selection to make, as it was during AIR87, and for mostly the same reasons. The F-35B should be seriously considered now as well. Keep up the great work!
Wonderful comment. Still mulling over my own thought of " Should these Amphibious platforms be multi role and modular in design". This video really makes me think these ships need ability to be rapidly refitted to suit the task. Only way to do it quickly is having basic modules premade for the task otherwise weeks or months in the dockyards. As far as the AH-64's was concerned, I reckon a better choice as we can get parts a lot easier. I'm sure even a group of 2 or 3 F-35B's on our Canberra class ships would be advantageous for long range detection.
Even 25 years ago it was dogs-ball-obvious that AIR87 should’ve gone with Apache. The choice to go with Tiger was either gross acquisition incompetence or frank corruption, and very possibly a bit of both. However, the idea of giving the RAAF some F-35Bs and expecting them to generate a fleet aviation capability in addition to their other roles grossly underestimates both the complexity of that capability and the capability trade-offs it would impose.
@@sophrapsune So what you're saying in affect is its too hard, So the loss of capital ship to hostile missiles would not be a trade off or loss of capacity. Given the serious treats we now face and Australian's GDP of 1.5 trillion we could well afford 24 F-34Bs.
@@Csqd1975 No, that’s no what I’m saying. I’m saying that a fleet fixed air capability is very complex to train, maintain and operate. The first capability trade-off is one of time and expertise. Expecting the RAAF to do that in addition to its current fighter tasking is a major distraction from both existing tasking and the complex fleet air role. They can’t be a jack of all trades. A dedicated fleet air arm (RAN or RAAF) would be required to avoid that. The second capability trade-off is that the F-35B is burdened with STVOL equipment that impacts its performance in other fighter roles. The third capability trade-off is that fleet air capability doesn’t come for free. Investing in that capability means diverting resources from some other Defence capability, as an opportunity cost. In short, there is no such thing as getting an aircraft carrier on the cheap and a minor add-on capability. The idea that we could get a fixed fleet air capability “just” by ordering F35Bs instead of another model is fanciful. It requires a very serious investment and payment of opportunity costs.
So what would you get rid of to pay for this? Half the submarines, the armies armoured element; and if you have more funds why would make this the priority. The armed services are acutely short of medical services. Without which no units can deploy anywhere? The RAN has insufficient marine engineers for its current force. We do have more admirals than warships and a couple of battalions worth of Captains and majors. Maybe cull the forces of the dead wood and recruit some young sailors so the ships are adequately crewed.
Well done (again). I've said it before, this is your niche. Only a military historian would have the skill set to interpret the data and present the information to an audience thriving on it, as you do. The video narration and production is superb. You are the Bill Bryson of Contemporary Military History, please keep up the work in providing the public with an interpretation of strategic movements behind the policies and how these relate to hardware acquisitions and defense direction.
Excellent video. I think order another LHD (L03) with dual capability + Upgrade the L01 & L02 to dual capability + Order an additional 12 F35B's (or more) that can be used on any of the LHD's if need be. (Remember we can always assist our allied countries as well with their F35B's if need be if we have the dual capability on all 3 LHD's).
At the very least I think Australia would benefit greatly by fielding even one Canberra Class outfitted with the F-35b infrastructure to serve as a dedicated flagship. Having that capability would provide enormous flexibility to our forces and if loaned further craft from our allies in the UK or US all 3 could serve as a very potent strike force. With Chouls due to be decommissioned soon, replacing it with another Canberra class outfitted specifically to be our best version of it would be the best option by far. The Canberra and Adelaide have had more than a few mechanical problems but a 3rd ship should be able to get around those issues and (hopefully) endear us to our allies who perhaps look down on Australia not quite carrying it's weight in the region diplomatically speaking under successful Liberal governments. Moving forward this new carrier with a strike capability would dissuade any of our small Pacific neighbours and friends of the notion that we can't protect them, because we can and will, if we have this capability.
A well thought out, researched and presented discussion. There is a lot to be said for the F35B on the Canberra's including maritime interdiction, area denial, force multiplication and force projection.
~50:00 it seems hard to sustain the argument that the raaf would be weakened by the acquisition of f35Bs, as opposed to more f35As, given that the lose in range is immediately overcome by the ability to park a squadron on a flat top adjacent to the field of operations. 7.5g rated airframes are just as capable as 9g airframes in the real world of strike fighters: no one dogfights anymore - especially up to 9gs. Having a smaller internal payload is not great issue: they can still go into ‘beast mode’ like the other F35s if required. But - as you have pointed out - their individual payloads are not particularly relevant: they can team with the combined arsenal of a AWD for the firepower required for any mission.
I would saying Australia were to go down the route of F35B, the options to upgrade Canberra class is one option but I personally would rate two or three Trieste type carriers.
I would saying Australia were to go down the route of F35B, the options to upgrade Canberra class is one option but I personally would rate two or three Trieste type carriers.
@@s353136 I’d have to disagree: that’s what the escorting Hobart class AWD’s and in future the Hunter Class frigates will do. So, the capability is as you suggest, but its a different platform that ‘fusion’ will allow the F35B to ‘quarterback’. Exactly how the F35Bs flying off American LHD’s will quarterback the Airleigh Burke Destroyers.
I truly hope you have been able to bring this examination of the topic to the people who will make the decision, they really need to see a rational, well thought-out and reasoned presentation of an F-35B option and it seems pretty clear they are not getting it from the organizations that are supposed to provide it.
i can assure you HHH's videos are front and centre in the ADF/Defence planning offices. They have been used to educate new ministers and organisational heads as well as provide a bunch of meat on a number or program bones. His study of the new submarine proposals as a lesson of the past classes was particularly well received. Sadly, it takes more than good analysis to chew the elephant....but it certainly helps
A very well presented argument giving good strategic logic. I used to work with 816 Squadron (as a civi) and used to hear all the stories from the old guys who served when Australian naval aviation had a fixed wing component, lamenting its loss. The main reason I came to understand why it has never been officially considered as an option was not so much the strategic argument, but rather the political message it would send. Possessing a force projection capability like that sends an undesirable message to all our trading partner "friends" in our region. I always wondered if it was an option "unofficially" considered by Australian leadership, just waiting for the right time to become official. Who knows with the events of the last 12 months, that time might be close.
When it comes to defence, well Australia needs more of everything. A huge investment into developing a long range land based missile system is critical. Desperately needed are more destroyers to defend our northern approaches along with an interim undersea capability like the Orca program the United States are invested in. We cannot wait until the mid 2030's for a paltry dozen submarines to be built. We need to think big and vastly expand our air, naval and land units.
@@fr0stmourn3, well what puzzles me is the ludicrous amount the Liberals are going to make Australians pay for a dozen new Barracuda Attack submarines. It costs $1.32 billion Euros for the French to build their own Nuclear Barracuda Class Submarine whch at the time of me typing equates to almost $2.1 billion Australian dollars. So why are we having to pay almost $90 billion AUD for 12 of them when ours will not even be nuclear powered?
@@hgf334 becuase we were stupid enough to ask for a complete redesign of an of the shelf item. Never in history has there been a redesign of a Nuclear powered sub to a deseil powered one. If the ADF want a deseil boat then buy an of the shelf one that is designed as one or go for a Collins Class Ii
Excellent video and really articulates the feelings of many Australians. Seems like a must have capability for our combined forces in the future battle spaces.
That's a very reasonable way to articulate the point. Even if we don't procure any 35b aircraft we could at the very least modify Canberra and Adelaide to accommodate them should out allies require that capability in a conflict in the region. I'm sure US and UK airmen would feel quite at home deploying sorties from an Australian light carrier after all. The ships are already PERFECT for the role, we just need to do the last 2% of the work to make it possible. When Chouls is retired I see a 3rd LHD designed with this capacity in mind, even if we don't field it with 35b's, it should certainly have a capacity to launch them from day 1.
Excellent take and channel. Spent many years as a 'birdfarmer' in the USN (PacFlt). Workstation billet was 'Command Classified Materials Custodian', and Battle Station billet was 'Bridge, Air Defence Circuit Captain'. Two minor points. Someone in these comments said "...no one dogfights anymore..." I would add only one word to the end of this statement - the word 'yet'. We learned the hard way about this in Vietnam. History has a funny way of sneaking up on you and biting you in the rear end! Second point is about the concept and name of 'carrier'...its role too. Equivalence in the USN of the Canberra Class would obviously be our 8 LHDs and 4 LHAs. Carry on with your research on THEIR capabilities and roles and you will see exactly what the futures of the Canberra, Adelaide and their successors in class will be.
Great analysis of the situation. One thing missed though is that the F35 is about twice as heavy as a AV8 and may require the strengthening of the flight deck and its supports, in any upgrade.
@@Rusty_Gold85 Late reply but the reference report of the Spanish Armada bureau of aquisitions defines the conversion work to operate the F-35B as less than 2.000 tonnes, given that this is a 26.000 tonn vessel plus the added weight of fuel, ammo, suplies and vehicles id say 2.000 tonnes is an acceptable difference and wouldnt be an issue with the straining on the power train and engines. Id encourage to do some research, cheers
A third ship, as a dedicated fighter carrier. Load 20 odd. They can still use the other ships to refuel/rearm if needed. Have 4 on each of the other 2 ships as a CAP giving 28 ish advanced front line fighters.
Really enjoy your channel, one of the most important on RUclips from an Australian perspective. Just a point of confusion; does the Canberra class have both fore and aft lifts to support deck operations? Perhaps consideration could also be given to acquiring 2 more Canberra types in a light carrier configuration when replacing the soon to be retired dock ship? Many thanks for your detailed journalism, far more detailed than legacy media. Kudos to you.
This is what iv'e been saying from the jump... Any/all US/NATO Allies already approved for f35 sales and happen to possess LHD's, Congradulations! You now have an carrier air-wing! Albeit small, but incredibly deadly!
As others have stated your research is second to none. You bring up some very positive theory’s on why we should have F35B capability on these ships. Maybe our ADF should watch your channel lol. I think the main reason they were not considered was probably cost. Great video! Cheers!
True, but they would not be starting from zero or scratch. Same goes for JUST buying a F35. But since they are flying F35's, then adopting "some" B models would not be the end of the world. That ship could start flying B models tomorrow if they HAD to. As noted, the ship not really setup for higher tempo air operations - but flying F35's could occur right now if they had the need.
Look how the RN have successfully integrated the F-35b with RAF 617 Sqn and USMC VMFA 211aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth. I'm now completely behind the F-35b. Many compared it directly to the F16 and slated it's lack lustre air to air performance accordingly, but as you have so eloquently pointed out, it's networking capabilities are truly 21st century and it's 'AWAC' features alone multiply the surface fleets fighting range. Also, it's ability to take out mid course guidance aircraft is certainly a game changer in the often trotted out "carriers are easy pray for saturation missile attack" argument. Your analysis of the hypothetical long range CAP over a task group compared to having those assets on-board is also most prescient.
It can support a few f35B as a emergency land and take of. But the Carrier can't support a fleet of them. It was designed for the Army not for the air force
Good arguments. The navy of any nation is always better off with its own air defence rather than relying on others,no matter how good or well intentioned .
Yep upgraded LHD be good, call it LHD+. Ideally some kind of assault carrier should be the the goal. Able to preform its LHD role and land troops but also handle a wing of F35bs at least and throw in a vertical missile cell next to the ski jump.
I am surprised that the ADF would be so rigid in their strategic and tactical thinking. I would hope that they are all around the potential of these ships. It is my sincere hope that they rust in peace.
A moron would not train for the unplanned and unexpected, such as launching and landing F35b,s. But moronic can regularly used to describe military leadership.
Modern ADF leadership has always been way too rigid and way too unambitious. The organisation is currently too top heavy with useless officers and it shows.
Thank you for a well thought out position on the feasibility of using f35bs on the Australian helicopter assault docks, turning them into miniature sea control carriers. I had always assumed that they were too small to sustain that type of operation. But you can definitely see an opportunity presenting itself. Not just an opportunity but a scalable one, the ADF is already working with the USMC regarding amphibious operations, why not invite them to put together a design proposal regarding modifications to permit f35b operations. You could even invite them onboard to implement the proposal using their f35bs. Afterall didn't they deploy onboard the HMS QE recently? It would save on r & d costs and this new mutual defense agreement should be worth something and they would be using their airplanes. Costs would be low for the ADF and the Americans can justify their costs to their own tax payers. And if the USMC proves the concept the ADF can place the order.
hey mate love the videos! Request/Recommendation: can you do a video of what you think the next large scale conflict could be and how it would play out, also what part(s) would Australia play?
3 года назад+2
Excellent Video. After reading "sharky" Wards book on his Experiences in the Falklands war with the Harrier, i find it particulary interesting that the F35 can replicate the capabilities of an AWACS, because the lack of such a system was a mayor porblem for the british according to him in the falklands campaigne.
Excellent video, detailed and articulate- well done!. I hope they do go with the option of making raaf deployable on Canberra. I'm sure it's possible to economically upgrade the ship, our own hms ocean lhd was a converted commercial ship & it served us well! Just don't get the French to convert it (like your subs), it may take 15 years! 😀
RFA Argus is a converted commercial ship. HMS Ocean was essentially the same as the Invincible class minus the ramp but simplified inside with more commercial spec when building. It wasn't a commercial conversion.
What a great deep dive into this topic! Would love to hear your thoughts on the US first fleet being possibly recreated and based in Australia. There was some talk a few months ago.
I think this is very close. Possessing super carrier performance this sort of arrangement would be extremely advantageous to the Indian Pacific security forces. Other options such as leaseback simply wouldn’t be possible politically or financially in Australia. But since our systems are fully compliant with the Aegis systems, integration would not be overly onerous. The Indian Pacific region drastically needs this sort of fire power particularly in the areas of air to sea and sea to sea fully operational ordinance and delivery platforms. Coordination and operational integrity between all of those nations in the Indian Pacific must be quickly and efficiently established.
As the recent submarine decision showed, our priorities have changed. Japan has upgraded their helicopter carriers for f-35b, and we should too.They have similar upgrade needs (deck coatings, magazines, etc) are not costing anywhere near $500 million (I think a figure of $30 million per vessel was mentioned elsewhere). With current military thinking revolving around distributed operations, allied forces need as many aircraft launching points as possible. Another 2 from Australia would certainly be very welcome. The defence of the Australian mainland is not the scenario that planners should be thinking about. A multi-nation operation in defence of Taiwan is the more realistic eventuality that we could face in the medium term. In that context, our LHDs would contribute a lot more to the effort acting as light carriers with F-35bs.
The maintenance costs of two aircraft carriers with 24 fighter jets can be fully financed by Australia. Each ship could be accompanied by two frigates, a nuclear submarine and auxiliary vessels.
Interesting and very informative as always. I have been wating for you to release your video, cant wait for the next one! By the way, I ask again for you Q&A videos, do you think NZ is pulling its weight militarily or do you think they are due to start investing more in their military as Australia is doing?
I remember reading an Article in [I think the Defence Journal] at the time the then Labor Gubment had just negotiated the contract with Spain....The Labor Defence Minister, catagorically repudiated all elements in the Aus LHD and they were to be NOT built with the Magazines, Fuel, Squadron requirements of a Fixed Wing capability....they were very proud of themselves having done so, as it substantially [?] 'reduced' the cost of our two LHD's.....The Navy well knows the advantages of a CAP over a Taskgroup....and the abilities of the F-35 are breathtaking vis a vee, it's sensor suite.
Excellent video! Just found your channel recently and have very much been enjoying it. Multirole vessel + 5th gen multirole fighter sounds like a solid idea to me, considering everything you've laid out in this video is correct 💪. It would open up countless possibilities, and increase the capabilities of the ADF. Spain and UK are good examples. F35B would definitely be something you'd want to have in your toolbox if war with China is a looming possibility. It would likely act as deterrent to them, as well. Considering your proximity to the South China Sea, I think having this capability is a no-brainer. In a conflict with China, Australia would be at the forefront. Having a naval/amphibious F-35B FOB capability would be critical for Australia and the Western Alliance as a whole, and could (likely imo) change the course of said conflict. A very common sense statement made in this video and one I very much agree with. *EDIT:* To be clear: Yes, I am American, and no... To me, this is not about my country making more money from the sale of more F-35s'. Actually, there are some nations that I would rather my country not even consider selling the F35 to. However, I do think it's a smart move for our close allies to have the F-35, as they are genuinely the best option and it makes us stronger as a whole. Also: Yes, I'm aware that Australia has the F-35A. Just thought I'd shut that down in advance, because I've had that absurd "argument" thrown at me in the comments regarding the F35 before.
Also one for the plus column, at least some F-35B's in the fleet gives the RAAF a very flexible expeditionary air wing. To continue your Falklands capability comparison harriers flying from the carriers were able to refuel and re-arm from what was basically a helicopter FOB on the Island to drastically increase time on station once that beachhead was secure. Likewise once the Islands were full recaptured Harriers were the only fighters able to fly air defence from the short runway at Stanley until it was lengthened for RAF Phantoms.
Or the ability to operate from smaller austere strips on the mainland or the islands such as Cocos, Norfolk etc.. away from the established bases and hidden away.
Very intelligent and well thought out analysis. Hopefully somebody in Canberra will have look into this. If History shows anything, they who control the high ground wins. This has been true in every conflict in the last 120 years, but especially true of WW2, where airpower and close airsupport superiority shattered the Axis ground and Naval forces. Naval forces can not makeover effectively in a high intensity conflict without organic airpower.
Well thought out arguement on a clearly superior civilian/military channel. The UK has the two supercarriers - but we need a lot more commitment to defence right now, especially as we are returning to "East of Suez" in our new more global role. The new AUKUS pact is a real step forward and I look forward to hearing what you make of it. Subbed! (pardon the pun, lol).
Also another though, with our development of the Loyal Wingman we could deploy a squadron of these to support the F-35B and MH-90 helicopters deployed from the Canberra Class
@@peterprovenzano9039 They are presumably light enough to use the ski ramp already there and a small light arrestor system across the deck shouldn't be a major issue for normal trap landings.
@@marksita76 Having wire arrestor gear would be extremely dangerous without an angled flight deck. Also the flight deck of the Canberra class would also be too small and too short for it. It'd be safer, easier and more logical to modify the Loyal Wingman to have a STO/VL capability.
F35B is only inferior to the F35A for the RAAF if it’s air bases are intact. With Australia’s lack of a heavyweight SAM capability this is a somewhat tenuous assumption.
Having served on Canberra, I was told that the flight deck was built thinner to reduce weight and cost and as a result only has 2 strong points which can accommodate at max 1 x Chinook per strong point. Therefore, the 'thinner parts of the flight deck may not be at the required safe standard to handle a potential constant blast from a jet engine when conducting a vertical landing or continuous take offs. To strengthen the deck would take considerable time and funding.
So they wouldn't spec with the ski jump removed due to re-engineering including changes in balance/weight, but were happy to significantly change the thickness and hence weight of the deck? That doesn't stack up, and such claims surely need a reliable source to be used as an argument.
In the current (and likely long term future) strategic environment, and with speedy deployment by the USA certainly not a given, Australia cannot overspend on our naval capability. I know there are also practical limits on Australia’s federal budget, but I’d support two light carriers, perhaps from Japan or Korea where they don’t take two decades to deliver a light carrier. And our current centres of excellence developing combat/attack, defensive and surveillance drones should have their investments doubled and accelerated. A homegrown drone design and manufacturing capability is very important.
Specifically need to make sure we can manufacture anything that is expendable like missiles and drones within out own borders and within our own resources.
We are already going to be manufacturing the American's 'loyal wingman drones for use with these and other aircraft here by the sounds of things. So we will likely be purchasing those.
Honestly, buying those subs from France and not Japan was a massive mistake. One that needs a royal commission to investigate. Watch this for more info ruclips.net/video/g2vnciriE_Q/видео.html
Take a bow, Sir. Your presentation is worthy of a GAO meeting, and provides some key insights for the laypeople who watch your channel. I particularly appreciate your reasonable skepticism regarding the risks and benefits of the F-35 platform, elements of which still plague the units deployed throughout the US armed forces and currently prevent the vehicle from fulfilling its advertised potential. Having said that, embarking on an indigenous program for manufacturing an Australian 5th generation fighter seems like a non-starter, and replacement/refurbishment of current aircraft inventory with 4th generation updates is merely kicking the can down the road while potentially introducing capability gaps in Australia's force structure. The rapid expansion of Chinese naval manufacturing and ops tempo places significant stress on the Australian military budget for reasons that you summarized, and the far-reaching implications of the subsequent strategic picture: any reasonable assumption that the RAN can rely on its allies must be tempered by the reality that the current anti-access area denial posture developed by the PLAN means that US forces will literally need to "fight to get to the fight", and then face the challenge of persistent operations in a high threat environment where the opponent retains a superior logistical advantage. Considering the potential long-lead times of materials and operational testing, billions spent now to upgrade the Canberra class may ultimately save ten-fold later, but there are also many unknowns. That is the difficult message that Australian politicians and military leaders must convey accurately and honestly to the citizens they govern.
Wow! If you’re looking for well researched and well presented content this is the channel to be at! Thank you for providing us with so much great content!
I think it would be short-changing the Australian Navy to settle with conversion of a helicopter dock to use F-35Bs. It would be far better for the RAN to commission and produce a fully capable and tailored aircraft carrier design that fully fits alongside the amphibious efforts and capabilities that are being built. Not only would this fully round out the RAN forces capability, but would also build on the Australian Naval construction capabilities that have gone through massive improvement. While Australia can launch aircraft from most of its landmass, protecting Australia is best done by protecting its neighbours and a fully capable carrier would give a much better capability to do that alongside its neighbours own forces. Might be a stretch but something that sort of takes the best things of the Gerald R Ford and Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers with some extras could be a good place to start.
This is a superior video factual and thought provoking. Who would want to shoulder responsibility for a decision like this ? Whatever Oz deserves the best. I never seen a F35B look so mean as the one tied down with the under wing load out 👀😲
If the LHDs were to truly be deployed for amphibious warfare as designed, having a fixed wing capability on hand to assist in fire suppression + creating a beach head would be a huge benefit to the amphibious operation. Both with strike missions and air superiority. They would essentially protect the amphibious force and help remove any intial resistance and make them a far more effective capability.
I've been itching to say this, but you beat me to it. A squadron of F35bs would give the amphibious force an additional layer of protection. There are so many lives and equipment at stake. Since you have the ship and the planes are available for purchase, this capability is like a must.
Bring back HMAS Melbourne. Just purchase 2 more flat tops and use for f35b ops when required. Dedicated ships are always the best. 1.5Billion each is cheap over 35 years. Purchase 2. Purchase f35b and heli's and when the need arises put the f35b on top of them and sail.
Hmas Melbourne was scrapped, we also don’t have enough supply ships, and destroyers and frigates to guard and support four amphibious warfare/ light carrier ships
@@Lightning_studios437 I know HMAS Melbourne was scrapped im just advising that we should build 2 more flat tops and call one Melbourne. Also with regards to not having enough ships/ supply/AWD and frigates look at HMS Queen Elizabeth. She has a mutil national fleet sailing with her. I think we can manage 2 more flat tops. It would bolster the navy and when need the F35b can take off from RAAF Base whatever and join the task force when required.
A not so fun fact, but the HMAS Melbourne was scrapped in China and alongside a number of Russian Aircraft Carriers was studied to help the PLAN develop their own carriers.
Very interesting and food for thought. The F-35B I thought was a modern Harrier which could take off and land anywhere, no airstrip or ship required. If so it would certainly be good to have few F35Bs in our kit. Am I right? Secondly, the distance hypothetical for the F-35A made me think of forward bases and what is going on with the Manus Island joint Aust/US base? Cheers from an Armchair Pontificator.
Do you think it could be worth more to Australia to develop a third Canberra class ship specifically to launch f35bs or spread the capability out across the 2-3 lhds we have and also as the regional threat rises should a Australia seriously consider having its own dedicated carrier force?
A year late but personally I think that the flexibility of a single fighter wing of F35b craft would dramatically improve our military's capability even in a simple recon ability. Apart from that there are tiny airstrips all over the Pacific neighbours we would be fighting along side and on Norfolk island etc that are suitable for the 35b but not a Super Hornet or 35a. Ultimately it gives us an enormous amount of flexibility and at the very least we should prepare our current LHD Canberra class vessels to accommodate this capacity. In the event of a war in he south Pacific, having that flexibility is an invaluable asset.
I remember during the building and receipt of the Canberra class ships the idea of them being used as carriers was talked about since they are based on the Spanish carrier. It was stated at the time this was NOT possible due to one modification to the Spanish vessel into the Australian vessel which means the flight deck not only is unsuitable due to not having the heat resistance required for jet operations but it is also not structurally re enforced enough to take the weight and stress of take-offs and landings. This to me is a lost option to add to our defence forces but not all is lost if the government were to replace the older and due to retire amphib ships with modified Canberra class ships or something better the idea of an air wing based on naval ships is as sound now as it was post WW2. During the time of Vietnam HMAS Sydney was transformed into a supply ship and carried no aircraft only HMAS Melbourne retained its aircraft till it was retired at about the same time as HMAS Sydney. The RAAF will always try to rule over all flying assets as it did up until the Blackhawks were acquired by the RAAF for the army this initially was because they claimed the army had no infrastructure to fly and maintain the UH-1s and that their replacements should stay with the RAAF which the Army always was opposed to from initial delivery of the UH-1s. Further to this when the fleet air arm was disbanded the RAAF was at the time fighting to have the fleet air arm squadrons become part of the RAAF so that the capability would be maintained even if we had no aircraft capable of being deployed on a non existent carrier. This was part of the reason that the F-111 we acquired was a combination of the USAF F-111A and the never built US Navy F-111B, our F-111Cs all had arrester hooks and this was required incase they were to ever be needed to be used from a future carrier purchase. So if some sort of fleet air arm was to be reborn i would expect the RAAF to try to combine it into the RAAF and even to use the RAF/RN manning of the Queen Elizabeth class carriers as justification of their stance. My personal belief is that a similar RAAF/RAN combined manning of a carrier would not be as good as if the RAN had its own fleet air arm, IF the maintenance and training was carried out at some sort of joint servicing and training establishment, this is similar to what was done with Blackhawk where the Army was also looking after the navy seahawks and the civilian contractors used for blackhawk were also used for seahawk.
You're videos are unique in the fact that you seem to be pretty non partisan and present all of the information given in the context of the world around the information, I've noticed this with channels that are Australian and Canadian, specifically. Any thoughts on why these specific countries seem to provide accurate and neutral input?
@@stevenguild2707 of course there are more neutral channels from different countries, and there are also ones that are very partisan from australia and canada, however I've seen more channels from these places that are neutral than not.
When one considers the capabilities of the F35B, only a peer or very near peer opponent would be capable of effectively countering a dozen of them. Add to that, the near certainty that confrontation with such an opponent would involve Australia's allies & deploying a squadron would add greatly to the combat effectiveness in such a scenario. Thanks for giving your views on military matters in such a clear & concise manner.
Good analysis of the pros and cons of the F-35B on the Canberra class LSD. Now that both Japan and South Korea have committed to converting their ships and/or building new carriers specifically for F-35B use, it will be very difficult for Australia not to do the same. While the proposed SSN acquisition will put the RAN on a level above the two stated peers, the fact that the RAN won't realize operationalizing SSNs for at least another decade will place them at a prestige disadvantage. It may not be wise, but from a peer standpoint, having similar ships yet not the aircraft to operate on them makes the RAN look inferior. Now that the SSN pathway has been forged, I fully expect that the RAAF will order 24 F-35Bs for shipboard use.
Navantia Australia already have the plans, so build two new ones for stovl ops, or alternatively join with Japan and Sth Korea and get the US to build 3 small carriers (they have world best expertise). Manpower recruitment wouldn’t be a problem if they drop the gender ratios. I personally know of 12 young men who can’t enlist because they are the wrong gender. The cost to it all is immaterial because if China comes storming down the straights we won’t have ANYTHING anyway, great presentation by the way.
5:15 - I’d like to see your hypothetical model expanded so that one of the two (or three if Choules is replaced by another LHD) embarks a flight of 4 F35s as standard, in much the same way as the US Marine expeditionary units include a flight of 4 F35Bs as standard on one of the US Navy’s LHDs that is assigned to that expeditionary unit. This standard embankment could be rotated on an annual basis between LHDs, with one of the other LHDs capable of surging a small squadron worth of F35Bs - much like the Americans can do with their LHDs. Lastly, rather than cutting short No.1 squadrons use of FA18Fs by a decade, I’d reform No.76 squadron (disbanded in the late 1960s) as a joint RAAF/RAN squadron based out of HMAS Albatross in South Nowra. I’d assign 28-36 F35Bs to this joint squadron, which would include a conversion flight (in much the same way as No.6 squadron incorporates a super hornet conversion flight alongside its Growler operations).
HMS Invincible class STOVL Sea Harrier equipt pocket carriers were considered to be basically useless by the USN. And then they proved to be invaluable for fleet protection and decisive in The Falklands War. Combat air patrol was heavily relied upon to protect RN assets from land based aircraft in The Mediterranian in WW2. The electronic warfare capabilities of the F35B allow it to simultainously fill the same roles of the USN's Growler and fighter attack role of the Superhornet. Buying 2 aircraft carriers and then using them as "undefended troop transports" sounds like something that The RCN would do.
@tim, With the increasing threat in China and Russia. Would it make sense to continue using the Tiger airframe while also buying the Apache helicopters. It seems that like the Collins Class, the Tiger is now a mature and successful vehicle after a early history of issues and flaws. I feel that the Tiger could fill a light recon attack role, where the Apache could fill the gap of a dedicated attack helicopter
It makes no military or logistical sense to maintain two types of helicopters in the inventory when they do the same mission and the apache does it better. Australia will save money by retiring the Tiger and not continue supporting it.
Interestingly, under AUKUS, Australia could use the UK Designed Bedford Array Landing System, which the USMC funded to provide a Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing System for Harrier & F-35B on its LHD Fleet, since further modified into 'Magic Carpet' used on USN CATOBAR Carriers. This system allows STOVL Aircraft to return with greater unused Ordnance and Fuel, which would otherwise be jettisoned before a Vertical Landing, as well as reducing maintenance and wear on the airframes from the shock of a Vertical Landing. As SRVL was demonstrated and perfected on Charles de Gaulle and HMS Illustrious (a smaller carrier than Canberra Class), this would not be an issue for a Light Carrier Mission for RAN. The Sortie Rate is also improved, as its quicker to land and taxi from SRVL than a Vertical Landing, but also the number of sorties would also be improved with the fuel savings from using SRVL Operations. As I understand it the USM is yet to install the Aircraft and Ship Sensors/Cameras/Computers & Software for SRVL on its own LHDs, but obviously the system was designed for this purpose, and its a proven system on QE Carriers.
In June 2000 a study was presented at the Amphibious Warfare conference held at Randwick army barracks in Sydney. The proposal by Peter Clark and Stephen Kretschmer of the concepts section of the Directorate of Naval Platform Systems was for a range of Multi role auxiliary (MRA). Three versions were developed using a common hull, a Replenishment ship, Amphibious lift and a Aircraft platform. The aircraft platform had a ships crew of 225 plus whatever the air wing personnel would have been, pictures show the ship launching a F/A-18 a classic hornet. If this was taken up by the Howard government at the time a ship could have carried Super Hornets or if they were too large and limiting numbers it could have instead of operated the Rafael or the navalised gripen fighter that Brazil thought about around 2010. The Navy magazine put out by The Navy league of Australia and Australians Warship Review in 2000 both had articles on these ships dubbed the LSS, The littoral support ship. Too late now but just another example of lost opportunities
One thing I want to know and please forgive me for my ignorance but dose the RAN have fixed wing air craft or a dedicated carrier. As it was unclear in the video. Secondly if the answer to my first question is negative, why don't they look at buying a Queen Elizabeth class carrier, as given the rising tentions in the indopacifc would that not add much needed capacity to The RAN. Third if they are unwilling to by F35s why not the USMC harriers yes some what older airframes but still good aircraft for that region of the world. Given that the USMC harriers are the result of the UK futer life program would that not be a cheaper option the the F35s Please feel free to correct anything I gave said as I am more of a army buff then a navy one
My memory of this is that Tony Abbott seemed to have considered the option of using the LHD as aircraft carriers for the F-35, and the response was, it was to expensive and required modifications to the deck to sustain thermal requirements.
None of that was open source IIRC, just background to media. And from what I’ve seen, the thermal problem is managed by a new deck coating, not “strengthening”, so it’s not exactly convincing. Basically if you look at a wasp class, which has the same problem, they just use a patch of thermion coating for the landing area. This coating is only marginally more expensive than their typical marine coating if you look at their website.
I admit that I’m biased towards getting the F35B. That was a great presentation discussing facts. And I literally laughed out loud with the question of “Shouldn’t we just rely on our Allies” The cost analysis is very confronting and makes the argument for them more than justified and I dare say that relying on land based fighters as possibly unreliable. Well done- I loved the timing of the pic of Yamamoto and was thinking- so true!
RAA? They usually just bring me a new battery when mine dies in my car! Imagine Longbow support choppering in a new battery on the highway! That’ll clear the traffic 😂
Additional factor I didn't see here is the take-of weight. I cannot find good stats but it seems even the faster and longer QE carrier may not be able to launch the F35B with full weapon load and fuel even when steaming into wind. If (for arguments sake) the Canberra can launch with 1/2 fuel and 1/2 weapons this changes the calculations (potentially tipping the scale)
you should take a look at the Italian navy-airforce joint f35b force, 2 squadrons of 15 jets each, a total force of 30 jets. The two services use their jets for different purposes but they are occasionally deployed together (under the command of a general when operating from FOBs and under the command of an admiral when operating from the carrier Cavour or the lhd Trieste). During exercise Pitch Black 2024 navy and Air Force jets will be deployed onboard the carrier alongside navy's av8b.
You are so, so right! China is reason enough..F-35Bs would be a huge asset just from the sensor suite alone notwithstanding stealth! Politicians have so let down countries in the west and I some times think they have become so blinded in thinking all that matters is them rather than the people they serve. I'm from the UK and finally we seem to be taking steps to rebuild the Navy. This procurement would also benefit the Australian economy both in terms of jobs but also in terms of skills and knowledge and a proper fixed wing carrier capability. Finally having your own mix of defensive capabilities with a proper small carrier based F-35B's is absolutely critical in these times and flexibility is the key and the F-35B gives you flexibility.
I support a fixed wing element, however current ADF force structure does not envisage this. The ADF chose an Amphib capability as being a higher priority than a Lite Carrier. They decided ADF land based airpower would be adequate for the expected operating environment of the vessels, alternatively naval based airpower may/might be provided by an allied nation. Today there are only 3 ships available, though only two could possibly embark STVOL. The scenario you have discussed fails to account on fleet availability, as they age you can expect at least one to be in refit/mid-life at any one time. If Amphib is the priority then the two available vessels will be required for that role.
The first Canberra class was ordered in 2004. The F-35B was not available outside the US until 2022. The ADF probably hasn't yet made a decision about using F-35Bs on the Canberra Class. Lead times are several years.
Excellent - naval aviation has always been very expensive. However given they are flying f35, then adopting b models is VASTLY easier to do. Significant overlap exists. And those b models are not only limited to the ships. And now Air to Air refueling is possible with v22's. Falklands shows what a ship with just 12 jets can achieve. And you nailed the issue of AWACS abilities that the f35b has - pilot's have noted that the f35b in some ways is better than a AWACS. Some form of air power in conflicts is a must have ability, and using Land based air power is not even close to viability. USA LHA ships have done multiple 6 week deployments of f35b ships. They found fantastic up time and maintenance of the f35b took less ground crews times then flying a f16! They had no issues flying the f35b and they didn't see additional labor or issues compared to flying Harriers. But with a stealth supersonic jet? 12 such jets is game changer - and is in fact a very formable air wing. Their networking ability and that of providing long range fire and control systems for ships changes everything.
@Drew Peacock Not an argument - you should try one. The readers here can't read your mind - so you have to point out what issues, facts or what you are disagreeing with. Maybe it was the quotes about how the F35 is better then a AWACS? Sure, lets quote some REAL pilots on this matter - shall we? LtCol. Tucker “Cinco” Hamilton] *_It is and just how much information you have about the battlefield okay right like I don't need the AWACS anymore telling me a lot of information like I have more information than they do Wow. which is really quite phenomenal_* in other words - the pilot is quite much saying that 3 folks in a Hawkeye have LITTLE amounts of information compared to what I have and know already - and I have that information and air battle theater view faster and better then the AWACS. I don't think you grasp the power of networking and information sharing here. USMC LtCol. Dave “Chip” Berke] A: *_If you were to just take all the sensors, on an f-35 and can't say what the bandwidth is and what the range is I'm not gonna tell you what they cover but if you just take all the sensors, and kind of draw them out I'm like how far they would reach and how wide in a band they would reach and what bands. that are in and lay them down and compare them to any other fighter in the world have F-35 anything else to include the f-22_* And he goes on to say: *_the amount of available information in different bands in different bandwidths and in different regimes. it is infinitely greater in an f-35 you have so much more information and then through fusion you're sharing and collaborating with all the other airplanes out there. it is impossible if you are a fourth gen to understand without seeing it from the inside and how much more awareness that you have_* So, the F35 represents a new way of thinking - and those F35 pilots already see more, and have more information then what the AWACS could ever hope to provide them. But, maybe you were not talking about my AWACS claim - perhaps there was something else you were disagreeing with - you have to share what that issue or fact or points I made that you disagree with - in other words, you have to make a basic argument to up-hold your position here.
@Drew Peacock Well, if you not making a valid intellectual augments then, would that not be a quite much what we would call a shill here then? If you preaching here that shills are all some big of a moral wrong - then why are you shilling here and not providing any facts then? how about you practice what you are preaching here then? Pot calling kettle black week for you? Hum?
@Drew Peacock Look dude - learn to read. The multiple 6 week deployments of F35b has ZERO to do with the issue of MORE hours to fly a F16 - I was comparing A models to f16s - but it really don't matter. The B model not showing any differences in per hour maintains cost or extra crew costs. The multiple deployments?: *_The lead vessel of the U.S. Navy’s newest class of amphibious assault ships, the USS America, designated Landing Helicopter Assault (LHA) 6, departed San Diego on July 7 for its first regularly scheduled deployment to the Pacific, Middle East, and the Horn of Africa_* Link: thediplomat.com/2017/07/us-navys-largest-ever-amphibious-assault-ship-deploys-to-the-asia-pacific/ Got it - multiple deployments - they each last 6 weeks. On a LHA class ship? They don't have big service bays like they do on a super carrier - they can gas up the jets - change tires - they don't (and can't) do complex maintains of those jets. F35B deployments with OVER 90% availability. In fact that quote is HIGH 90's as outlined by this RAF commander: ruclips.net/video/bn3SNLDoqIQ/видео.html I time stamped the video. While that RAF deployment was not on a ship - it was a foreign country deployment - and the up times on the ships vs land based are the same. the point about the LHA class ships was not to compare to the f16 - it was to point out that how on earth can you fly F35b's on a smaller ship without advanced F35 service bays - clearly they ARE able to do this. As I stated, the stealth per hour cost and labor is not significant , and is in fact a non issue. As noted, it takes more ground crew hours to maintain and fly a f16 then it does a F35 right now:. Cost Element F35 per hour F16 per hour Unit Level Manpower 8,000 10,000 Unit Operations 5,000 6,000 Maintenance 11,000 6,000 Sustaining Support 3,000 2,000 Continues Systems Support 2,000 2,000 ---- ---- 29,000 26,000 2021 CPI indexed: F16 - 30,383 F35 - 33,888 So right now the F35 has a higher cost per hour, but as you can see in above, less man hours are required to keep the f35 flying. But as noted, the parts and supply costs for the F35 are still dropping. The cost per hour of the F35 has dropped 40% in the last 5 years - and it is still dropping. The f16 already dropped over the past 30 years - it not going to drop in per hour costs - and in fact being older, the per hour labor costs are going up. Parts cost will drop by about 30% - as it has and does for most jets - so the F35 will in fact be quite much on par in regards to cost per hour to fly compared to a f16. And if the F35 was all oooooh so high to maintain, then you have explain how they are able to fly and maintain 6 F35'bs deployed on a small ship without high level service bays and abelites to repair the F35B on those small ships - they don't have big aircraft service bays and abilities anything CLOSE to a super carrier. So I am noting the B model and deployments on helicopter ships since it not really possible to do much maintains of the F35 B on those ships - so it can't be all that bad - can it? So there is no intention to limit or suggest or hint or imply that the B models are required for this comparison - only that they clearly are able to deploy F35's in what amounts to low maintains environments - JUST like the UK deployment was in the middle east - and their commander noted over 90% up times.
@Drew Peacock Missed this. What on earth are you taking about? The figures are cost figures - not ALL of those items are hours of labor. But since the labor cost is the same in both cases? Then you get MORE hours of labor. the PARTS quoted number is 10,000 (f35) vs 8000 (f16). that is the cost of parts etc - not labor costs. Unit manpower IS LABOR. Labor cost from that quote? F35: 8000 F16: 10,000 learn to read!!! The latest government figures 2020 show that the F35 is less to run per hour then a F15, and less to run per hour then a F18. so, quote: (not from some blog, or your mon's basement), we have these numbers: First the official government link: Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Management and Comptroller: YEAR 2020 comptroller.defense.gov/Financial-Management/Reports/rates2020/ Air Force Numbers: F-15C $22,489 F15D $21,745 F15e $17,408 F22 $40,385 F35A $16,952 navy numbers: F18C $18,056 F18D $18,048 F18F $13,654 F35C $13,124 You can't go quote 5+ year old numbers - they are misleading since the F35 was new on military bases - new engine racks, new tow bars, new flight simulators, new battery cables, new part shelves - a long list. In just 5 years the per hour cost of the F35 has dropped 40% - and this is expected. So quoting 5+ year old per hour costs - they don't count and don't make sense. you can go grab the above numbers on your own. the above is what we call reimbursement rates. that is the rate the military base gets funded to run + fly their jets. If the numbers were wrong, then the military base would run out of money to keep their jets flying. They don't get 40k per hour to fly the F22 if it is not flying. They fly the jet, and then Uncle Sam has to write a check to cover that air base costs. The above are the latest rates and accounting used to pay out money to keep jets flying. there is ZERO reason why a F18 or a F35 should cost much if any different to fly per hour. And the above shows they are about the same - and the older f18's show quite a bit more per hour cost to run - and that also makes sense.
@Drew Peacock Ok, so lets take these one at a time. >OK so I misspoke. Even by YOUR OWN figures though the F-35 costs almost twice as much per hour to maintain than an F-16: $11,000 vs $6,000. The parts cost is double - but the labor and manpower for the F35 is LESS. So you can NOT lie and state that the F35 has huge amounts of maintains. And the f16 has had 30+ years of supply chain build up - and mutiple re-bids on those supply chains. So, yes, no kidding sherlock - a jet in service for that long no doubt has lower parts costs - it been that way for about 100 years now. What is next, you need to be told that blue skies exist? Lockheed expects that part cost to drop a further 30%. And again past history shows this to be the case. And we DO SEE the costs coming down - as I stated we seen a drop by 40% for quoted per hour costs.. In fact, if we accept that parts costs will drop by 30%? If we drop the 11,000 per hour by 30%? Then the cost per hour of flying the F35 is not only comparable to the f16, but it works out to $8,400 for maintains cost. So now we have $26,400 per hour for the F35, and $26,000 per hour for the f16 (those are un-adjusted without inflation). But it don't matter - you get roughly the SAME cost per hour. >nowhere does it state in the PDF that the figures given are the flight cost per hour for the various aircraft listed. yes it does: The pdf link is this one (direct) from the list of pdfs: The NAME of the document is this: Fixed Wing and Helicopter reimbursement rates. Those rates are MOST certainly the quoted per hour rates. Any blog, magazine worth its salt has and DOES use that document. As noted, direct link: comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2020/2020_b_c.pdf And to quote from that PDF? We have this: *_The following hourly rates for fixed wing aircraft are effective October 1, 2019, and are to be used when the applicable aircraft are provided on a reimbursable basis_* As I stated, this is not only the quoted per hour rates, but IS TO BE USED as how bases get reimbursed. This is the de-facto quote and rate used. It is the actual rates paid out by the comptroller office - and is the per hour rates paid out to run a given jet. THE FACT that the quoted numbers match your numbers for f18's should quite much allow you to figure this out. As noted, the ONLY jet that shows a substantial lower per hour cost is the f16 - and I explained why. The REAL issue is honesty here. If you going to say that a F35 is really high cost per hour, then you BETTER say the same about the f18, and you BETTER say the same about the F15. Failure to do so is in fact you with FULL knowledge misleading the public. If you JUST quote a f16, and F35? Sure, that makes the F35 look to be high. But if you quote the F35, F18, and F15 as the SAME, and THEN quote the f16? Then at least people walk away knowing that a F35 is not more costly to fly then f18, or f15. Failure to do so means that you don't care about the truth - but ONLY optics to mislead public opinion that the F35 is some kind of outliner of a jet in regards to cost when it simply is not.
Using the USN experiment converting the America from an "amphibious landing ship helicopter carrier" tasked mainly as amphibious transport and support to the "lightning carrier," The transformation is not as trivial as this video suggests, and mainly centers on the well deck where all the amphibous vehicles are stored which in theory would be converted mainly into armament and fuel storage. This is the problem why only one and possibly a second America class conversion will be made and none of the other 8 ships in the class are being considered. Any new Lightning carriers will be constructed from scratch for this purpose. There is an enormous expense and years of downtime required to make the conversion, and is a major commitment. This video probably does a good job listing the reassons for making a change. Australia probably needs to consider as much the loss of an amphibious landing dock as much as it considers adding a much needed, highly capable carrier capability. Of course, any decision won't be fulfilled until 10-15 years from now, it's hard to project what Australia's security needs will be, but considering China's very obvious turn to belligerency on the seas, it's probably clear that Australia needs some kind of carrier capability unless it wants to possibly fint China on its doorstep.
As an aviation buff I would love to see Australia return to having a fleet air arm good point on the f35b having AWAC capabilities . I was totally unaware of this . Being interested in all things military as well I have noticed across the world countries beefing up there maritime capabilities and particularly the desire to increase naval power via aircraft and amphibious landers which can convert to small aircraft carriers that you touched on in your presentation . You can beat it’s the left wing bleeding heart SJW types whom plot against the idea of this for the ADF . Thanks for a great presentation Best MAGOOS kids channel
I'm about as left as it gets before you dive off into communist land and I've always supported this capability. The opposition comes solely from the centre right who are the bulk of Australians and think 'we aren't at war, why do we need more weapons? Etc' You can project that bullshit onto people who want more social care all you like but it isn't people who want more support for disadvantaged communities that are opposing this...
great presentation, we should not limit the ship's capabilities, having the ability to provide air cover to a task force group is an obvious consideration that should be taken up or at least the consideration of buying a third ship designed to provide air cover to the 2 LHD's, both LHD's should at least have the ability to also land planes in either scenario.
Your analogy considers a full scale operation of 12 x F25B's but there would be great benefit for being able to just "land - refuel - launch" and maybe re-arm a couple/few of F35B's. These F35B's could be land based and just use the AHD to extend (double) their range.
It should work and furthermore the Australian Navy can cross-train with Royal Navy UK Japanese and US Navy carriers that are F-35B equipped future South Korean Navy if Dokdo is also F-35B capable. I wonder if an existing RAAF base in the Perth area can support RAN F-35B squadrons. Current F-35 RAAF bases are around Sydney Brisbane and Darwin.
I'd love to see Textron release a carrier capable Scorpion. They would be extremely useful in any landing effort & would significantly extend the Canberra class. The problem with any aircraft discussion is, we really have no idea how much it would cost to retrofit our ships for fixed wing aircraft - of any kind. Light attack aircraft are superior to helicopters for ISR & CAS.
Great video great channel. The negative argument will go right out the window the day the PLAN sends a battle group off the coast of say east timor. The landing ability of your military is a priority for current operations, peace keeping etc in high intensity conflict the ability to have any air cover for a surface task force would be priority.
I'd suggest the cost would be higher than you suggest due to the lack of commonality in the variants. So you'd need significantly more capital investment than just the unit procurement & flight hour costs. That said, I think the reconnaissance capability provided by the F-35B alone would make it worthy of consideration. I'd happily see an investigation into the minimum number of aircraft needed for that sort of role, as well as the resource requirements on the ship.
Why, oh Why, don't they have flared flight decks. Surely getting through the Panama Canal isn't that important to the RAN! Surely enhanced deck space would be advantageous for this class of ship? Help me understand this please.
Im not sure if this is a concern that is still prevalant but it was my understanding there was some hesitation (roughly when the first vessel was comisioned and f35b speculation was at a all time high) on the basis of f35bs in US service showing maintence issues w sea salt exposure (something you would hope would to have been mitigated by this point tho). I also remember Abbott directly enquiring about f35b capability at the time the ships where first entering service and a semi-definitve response from ran being given, but that could just be me misrembering. Fantastic video regardless, you have me trying to find old abc articles now.
As far as research, analysis, and presentation go, this is probably the most intelligent military channel I've come across. (Also Dung Tran's isn't too shabby either)
Good appreciation of war fighting doctrine.
Agree mate, it is very methodical and clear how he came to conclusions. Whilst many others you can tell they just read from wiki, used Google, or just rehashed from official places that tend to have a strong bias one way or another. Ie America military channels I found tend to have a focus on we are the best, and no focus on the areas their military asserts may lack in. Ie videos such as the patriot missile system is superior to the s400 and alike without really breaking down the facts about why its superior.
Yes, Tran's videos are great and quite informative.
@@mcelroychandler6267 @MCELROY CHANDLER I beg to differ, at least partially. He made an entire video about the F-36 with straigh-up doesn't exist, not even as a prototype or blueprint. USAF was doing a case study on if designing and fielding such a plane was feasible, but that got blown out of proportion, and people think they're actually pursuing a fighter. He also made a video stating that the UK is losing interest in the F-35B and cutting procurement substantially. There was a more recent update that procurement will likely be much more than the publicized 48 (down from 138). He stated that the UK is diverting support to the Tempest, which makes no sense because Tempest also doesn't exist yet and is more than a decade away. Also the F-35B is the only carrier-capable fighter the UK has. As honest as he is, he didn't seem to delve much deeper than a news article.
Most other videos, he was much more comprehensive.
I like Dung Tran, but can’t understand a bloody word half the time!
12 F 35b's might not be enough, but 12 paired with a contingent of 3-4 loyal wingmen per plane, you suddenly have a massive capability. Those loyal wingmen take up way less room too.
Much lighter, much cheaper, and no aircrew risk, all with the same performance as a fighter. Can easily see them partnered with both air to air refueling drones and AWACS drones in future too to extend range and loitering times with the fleet kept at a safe distance.
Pretty sure the loyal wingmen drones are solely land-based, not naval.
@@benharris211 They are at the moment but how long before defence departments worldwide realise the benefits of adapting them for naval use? It's only a matter of time. Drone warfare along with some level of human element on land air and sea is the way of the future. eventually.
@@benharris211 they are, but they are also light as, so they could launch off ski-ramp LHDs without having to invest in big catapult systems (although a small - 5 to 10KW EMALS cat on the starboard side in front of the forward lift might be a viable modification if required). Light arrestor wire recovery systems could also be installed on the LHDs without too much drama. Embarking a squadron of F35s, but a dozen maritime variants of the loyal wingman could see the 24/7 CAP function undertaken by a single F35 (rotating on a 3-4 hr patrol basis) with 4 or so Wingman paired to that single manned plane, with the other aviation assets on standby to help put the stick about if required. The F35 is a force multiplier. The loyal wingman is an autonomous platform, but without the F35s big brain. It’s meant to team with manned platforms. This may change over the next 30 years though. Especially when quantum computing takes AI to another level.
Smart thinking.
Even if Australia didn't buy its own F-35Bs, making the ships capable of supporting F-35B operations could be a big advantage: in the event of a large conflict, the US Marines or Royal Navy could forward deploy F-35Bs to operate from the Australian ships to provide CAP and a light strike capability while repositioning their full Carrier Strike Groups.
ok colonial
@@DANINREDDY we are allies just like in WW2 where the US saved Australia from invasion
Wise, Australia has always had a key role with her cousins and has always shined in expeditionary war.
Training with F-35Bs and being able to drop into NATO carrier groups and US Marine units is very useful, even if you never buy your own F-35Bs
@@tylerclayton6081 I mean we helped but the Aussies were pretty good on their own. Tbf McArthur was a jackass and not only minimized their actions but left them to dry a few times. But hey, it's what happens when a propaganda officer gets command over a theater of war. He probably heard theater and misunderstood.
Edit: this channel actually has a great video over the Pacific theater that really shows how much work they put in and how they got screwed.
As a Canadian I'm really jealous of your navy. You guys do so much right in terms of procurement, the Australian navy is everything a small nation navy should be.
Apart from the submarine debacle...
@@GARDENER42 Still better than our submarine debacle
Oz is not a small nation lol
actually our defence boffins ruin everything. Always wanting US combat systems when it's not native to ship. Blows out costs and ruins everything
@@ZacParsonsComedy well, unless we get out of our sub debacle, we're up for $200billion for 12 subs
I'm a retired infantry officer in the IDF, now living in Oz. I think this is a brilliant job that you have done. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you have presented here.
Thankyou my friend, I appreciate the positivity from someone who knows what they are talking about. I hope you are enjoying life in Australia, I had a few friends in Sydney who were ex IDF.
🇭🇲🇮🇱❤️
By far the best analysis. I would add that two Australian F-35B carriers would enable the formation of a joint Aus-US battlegroup consisting of one of the USS Wasp or America-class F-35B carriers and one of the Australian F-35B carriers.
@@chuckhooks6621 Hell the US could just use the LHD's as temporary carriers. Shuttle them between RAN and Japanese Navy carriers depending on where they're needed.
What's a Zionist doing in Oz? Shame on you for bombing Gaza
Well done mate. Excellent piece of analysis. Agree wholeheartedly. Having served in a number of regional hotspots nothing would've boosted morale faster and further than the knowledge that an Australian F35B was sitting on a ship within a few minutes flying time from our location. F18s sitting on an airfield in Tindall weren't much help to a patrol in Timor's Mount LeoLaco in 1999.
Hey,
Could you drop a RUclips link you would recommend so we could appreciate what happened at Mt Leo please ?
Whenever you say stats like tonnage, speed, fuel capacity, sorty rate - maybe put them on the screen as text - easier to think about, especially when you were comparing two ships/aircraft
Agree, that would be a nice touch
I applaud you for posting these videos and your thought process and assumptions are very well reasoned. I’m a former officer in the ADF and was involved in Force Development (Aerospace) in the 1990s and worked on the AIR5333 project as well as AIR87. One of the biggest issues we faced was always the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and even though the Project Team’s recommendations may have been for a particular platform that fitted our needs the best, this could be overwritten by the thoughts of a particular Director General who might prefer one option over the other, or in the case of the RAN, who often did their own thing, a Project Manager who wrote requirements specifically so they favoured a supplier they liked the most, especially if they saw the possibility of a lucrative future with that supplier once they left the ADF, often in deference for the needs of the ADF as a whole. The other thing that often happens is that the Parliamentary committee would decide on a platform with promised capability, rather than proven capability, as long as the offsets etc were better and suited their domestic political needs. The Tiger is a prime example. Had the preferences of the AIR87 Team at the Russell Offices been taken into consideration, there would have been AH-64Ds being ordered instead. In the end, the Project Team will short list the best options, and give their reasons as to why they prefer a particular type over another, but the Civilian Committee can select any of the types that make the short list, as long as they make that list. It seems though, that the threat of the PRC becoming expeditionary has changed some thinking, since the AH-64E was selected in a hurry, and is the right selection to make, as it was during AIR87, and for mostly the same reasons. The F-35B should be seriously considered now as well. Keep up the great work!
Wonderful comment. Still mulling over my own thought of " Should these Amphibious platforms be multi role and modular in design". This video really makes me think these ships need ability to be rapidly refitted to suit the task. Only way to do it quickly is having basic modules premade for the task otherwise weeks or months in the dockyards. As far as the AH-64's was concerned, I reckon a better choice as we can get parts a lot easier. I'm sure even a group of 2 or 3 F-35B's on our Canberra class ships would be advantageous for long range detection.
Even 25 years ago it was dogs-ball-obvious that AIR87 should’ve gone with Apache.
The choice to go with Tiger was either gross acquisition incompetence or frank corruption, and very possibly a bit of both.
However, the idea of giving the RAAF some F-35Bs and expecting them to generate a fleet aviation capability in addition to their other roles grossly underestimates both the complexity of that capability and the capability trade-offs it would impose.
@@sophrapsune I think that if they were to go with F-35B they'd do it like the UK and cross train and support them with the USMC.
@@sophrapsune So what you're saying in affect is its too hard, So the loss of capital ship to hostile missiles would not be a trade off or loss of capacity. Given the serious treats we now face and Australian's GDP of 1.5 trillion we could well afford 24 F-34Bs.
@@Csqd1975 No, that’s no what I’m saying.
I’m saying that a fleet fixed air capability is very complex to train, maintain and operate.
The first capability trade-off is one of time and expertise. Expecting the RAAF to do that in addition to its current fighter tasking is a major distraction from both existing tasking and the complex fleet air role. They can’t be a jack of all trades. A dedicated fleet air arm (RAN or RAAF) would be required to avoid that.
The second capability trade-off is that the F-35B is burdened with STVOL equipment that impacts its performance in other fighter roles.
The third capability trade-off is that fleet air capability doesn’t come for free. Investing in that capability means diverting resources from some other Defence capability, as an opportunity cost.
In short, there is no such thing as getting an aircraft carrier on the cheap and a minor add-on capability.
The idea that we could get a fixed fleet air capability “just” by ordering F35Bs instead of another model is fanciful. It requires a very serious investment and payment of opportunity costs.
Another well though out and presented video my dude.
I say buy that third carrier, and 12 additional F35-Bs on top of the RAAF's F35-A order.
buy 36 so you can have spares and a spare squadron on land as well for training etc.
Do you realise they ordered the f35 jsf back in 2006? Order more now, we get them in 14yrs time.
So what would you get rid of to pay for this? Half the submarines, the armies armoured element; and if you have more funds why would make this the priority. The armed services are acutely short of medical services. Without which no units can deploy anywhere? The RAN has insufficient marine engineers for its current force.
We do have more admirals than warships and a couple of battalions worth of Captains and majors. Maybe cull the forces of the dead wood and recruit some young sailors so the ships are adequately crewed.
@@russellmiles2861 the civi security at raaf base townsville for a start 😂
@@russellmiles2861 cut the deadwood
Well done (again). I've said it before, this is your niche. Only a military historian would have the skill set to interpret the data and present the information to an audience thriving on it, as you do. The video narration and production is superb. You are the Bill Bryson of Contemporary Military History, please keep up the work in providing the public with an interpretation of strategic movements behind the policies and how these relate to hardware acquisitions and defense direction.
Well said
Excellent video. I think order another LHD (L03) with dual capability + Upgrade the L01 & L02 to dual capability + Order an additional 12 F35B's (or more) that can be used on any of the LHD's if need be. (Remember we can always assist our allied countries as well with their F35B's if need be if we have the dual capability on all 3 LHD's).
At the very least I think Australia would benefit greatly by fielding even one Canberra Class outfitted with the F-35b infrastructure to serve as a dedicated flagship. Having that capability would provide enormous flexibility to our forces and if loaned further craft from our allies in the UK or US all 3 could serve as a very potent strike force.
With Chouls due to be decommissioned soon, replacing it with another Canberra class outfitted specifically to be our best version of it would be the best option by far.
The Canberra and Adelaide have had more than a few mechanical problems but a 3rd ship should be able to get around those issues and (hopefully) endear us to our allies who perhaps look down on Australia not quite carrying it's weight in the region diplomatically speaking under successful Liberal governments.
Moving forward this new carrier with a strike capability would dissuade any of our small Pacific neighbours and friends of the notion that we can't protect them, because we can and will, if we have this capability.
A well thought out, researched and presented discussion. There is a lot to be said for the F35B on the Canberra's including maritime interdiction, area denial, force multiplication and force projection.
I think f 35b s are show ponies. Where are they going to be used?
~50:00 it seems hard to sustain the argument that the raaf would be weakened by the acquisition of f35Bs, as opposed to more f35As, given that the lose in range is immediately overcome by the ability to park a squadron on a flat top adjacent to the field of operations. 7.5g rated airframes are just as capable as 9g airframes in the real world of strike fighters: no one dogfights anymore - especially up to 9gs. Having a smaller internal payload is not great issue: they can still go into ‘beast mode’ like the other F35s if required. But - as you have pointed out - their individual payloads are not particularly relevant: they can team with the combined arsenal of a AWD for the firepower required for any mission.
I would saying Australia were to go down the route of F35B, the options to upgrade Canberra class is one option but I personally would rate two or three Trieste type carriers.
I would saying Australia were to go down the route of F35B, the options to upgrade Canberra class is one option but I personally would rate two or three Trieste type carriers.
And while upgrading the Canberra class ships, give them some capacity to also send missiles which the F35’s could direct to targets.
@@s353136 I’d have to disagree: that’s what the escorting Hobart class AWD’s and in future the Hunter Class frigates will do. So, the capability is as you suggest, but its a different platform that ‘fusion’ will allow the F35B to ‘quarterback’. Exactly how the F35Bs flying off American LHD’s will quarterback the Airleigh Burke Destroyers.
I truly hope you have been able to bring this examination of the topic to the people who will make the decision, they really need to see a rational, well thought-out and reasoned presentation of an F-35B option and it seems pretty clear they are not getting it from the organizations that are supposed to provide it.
i can assure you HHH's videos are front and centre in the ADF/Defence planning offices. They have been used to educate new ministers and organisational heads as well as provide a bunch of meat on a number or program bones. His study of the new submarine proposals as a lesson of the past classes was particularly well received. Sadly, it takes more than good analysis to chew the elephant....but it certainly helps
@@glenn9229 awesome if true
A very well presented argument giving good strategic logic. I used to work with 816 Squadron (as a civi) and used to hear all the stories from the old guys who served when Australian naval aviation had a fixed wing component, lamenting its loss. The main reason I came to understand why it has never been officially considered as an option was not so much the strategic argument, but rather the political message it would send. Possessing a force projection capability like that sends an undesirable message to all our trading partner "friends" in our region. I always wondered if it was an option "unofficially" considered by Australian leadership, just waiting for the right time to become official. Who knows with the events of the last 12 months, that time might be close.
When it comes to defence, well Australia needs more of everything. A huge investment into developing a long range land based missile system is critical. Desperately needed are more destroyers to defend our northern approaches along with an interim undersea capability like the Orca program the United States are invested in. We cannot wait until the mid 2030's for a paltry dozen submarines to be built. We need to think big and vastly expand our air, naval and land units.
Vote Labor then because they're the only ones seriously talking to experts and not lobbyist about regional capability and sovereignty.
@@fr0stmourn3, well what puzzles me is the ludicrous amount the Liberals are going to make Australians pay for a dozen new Barracuda Attack submarines. It costs $1.32 billion Euros for the French to build their own Nuclear Barracuda Class Submarine whch at the time of me typing equates to almost $2.1 billion Australian dollars. So why are we having to pay almost $90 billion AUD for 12 of them when ours will not even be nuclear powered?
@@hgf334 becuase we were stupid enough to ask for a complete redesign of an of the shelf item. Never in history has there been a redesign of a Nuclear powered sub to a deseil powered one. If the ADF want a deseil boat then buy an of the shelf one that is designed as one or go for a Collins Class Ii
@@hgf334 Because they won't be nuclear. Everything is nuclear in France, and its EdF foreign subsidiaries.
@@ScaryMedic86 Agreed, we could for that amount build or purchase 24 diesel submarines.
Excellent video and really articulates the feelings of many Australians. Seems like a must have capability for our combined forces in the future battle spaces.
That's a very reasonable way to articulate the point.
Even if we don't procure any 35b aircraft we could at the very least modify Canberra and Adelaide to accommodate them should out allies require that capability in a conflict in the region. I'm sure US and UK airmen would feel quite at home deploying sorties from an Australian light carrier after all.
The ships are already PERFECT for the role, we just need to do the last 2% of the work to make it possible.
When Chouls is retired I see a 3rd LHD designed with this capacity in mind, even if we don't field it with 35b's, it should certainly have a capacity to launch them from day 1.
Excellent take and channel. Spent many years as a 'birdfarmer' in the USN (PacFlt). Workstation billet was 'Command Classified Materials Custodian', and Battle Station billet was 'Bridge, Air Defence Circuit Captain'. Two minor points. Someone in these comments said "...no one dogfights anymore..." I would add only one word to the end of this statement - the word 'yet'. We learned the hard way about this in Vietnam. History has a funny way of sneaking up on you and biting you in the rear end! Second point is about the concept and name of 'carrier'...its role too. Equivalence in the USN of the Canberra Class would obviously be our 8 LHDs and 4 LHAs. Carry on with your research on THEIR capabilities and roles and you will see exactly what the futures of the Canberra, Adelaide and their successors in class will be.
Interesting, intelligent and (at times) delightfully diplomatic. A great contribution to the debate/discussion.
Great analysis of the situation. One thing missed though is that the F35 is about twice as heavy as a AV8 and may require the strengthening of the flight deck and its supports, in any upgrade.
therefore throwing extra pressure on the power train and engines of the ship and speed she was designed for
@@Rusty_Gold85 Late reply but the reference report of the Spanish Armada bureau of aquisitions defines the conversion work to operate the F-35B as less than 2.000 tonnes, given that this is a 26.000 tonn vessel plus the added weight of fuel, ammo, suplies and vehicles id say 2.000 tonnes is an acceptable difference and wouldnt be an issue with the straining on the power train and engines. Id encourage to do some research, cheers
@@Rusty_Gold85 Well, no. Ships don't work like that. Water is fluid and doesn't change the force on the drive train.
The US amphibious ships needed to be treated to stop holes being burnt into them
A third ship, as a dedicated fighter carrier. Load 20 odd. They can still use the other ships to refuel/rearm if needed.
Have 4 on each of the other 2 ships as a CAP giving 28 ish advanced front line fighters.
2-4,Trieste type would compliment the RAN quite well I think .
And some loyal wingman drones
Yes! A Queen Elizabeth type. 👍 (Nuclear powered now 😉)
Really enjoy your channel, one of the most important on RUclips from an Australian perspective. Just a point of confusion; does the Canberra class have both fore and aft lifts to support deck operations? Perhaps consideration could also be given to acquiring 2 more Canberra types in a light carrier configuration when replacing the soon to be retired dock ship? Many thanks for your detailed journalism, far more detailed than legacy media. Kudos to you.
It has forward and aft lifts, as well as a smaller weapons lift next to the forward lift
@@francisbolster772 thanks for the reply mate.
Don't think you'll be replacing the Bay class anytime soon. You haven't had it that long. Stupid decision by the UK coalition govt to bin it.
This is what iv'e been saying from the jump... Any/all US/NATO Allies already approved for f35 sales and happen to possess LHD's, Congradulations! You now have an carrier air-wing! Albeit small, but incredibly deadly!
As others have stated your research is second to none. You bring up some very positive theory’s on why we should have F35B capability on these ships. Maybe our ADF should watch your channel lol. I think the main reason they were not considered was probably cost. Great video! Cheers!
True, but they would not be starting from zero or scratch. Same goes for JUST buying a F35. But since they are flying F35's, then adopting "some" B models would not be the end of the world. That ship could start flying B models tomorrow if they HAD to. As noted, the ship not really setup for higher tempo air operations - but flying F35's could occur right now if they had the need.
Look how the RN have successfully integrated the F-35b with RAF 617 Sqn and USMC VMFA 211aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth. I'm now completely behind the F-35b. Many compared it directly to the F16 and slated it's lack lustre air to air performance accordingly, but as you have so eloquently pointed out, it's networking capabilities are truly 21st century and it's 'AWAC' features alone multiply the surface fleets fighting range. Also, it's ability to take out mid course guidance aircraft is certainly a game changer in the often trotted out "carriers are easy pray for saturation missile attack" argument. Your analysis of the hypothetical long range CAP over a task group compared to having those assets on-board is also most prescient.
Extremely good content! Greetings from Finland!
It can support a few f35B as a emergency land and take of. But the Carrier can't support a fleet of them. It was designed for the Army not for the air force
Good arguments. The navy of any nation is always better off with its own air defence rather than relying on others,no matter how good or well intentioned .
Yep upgraded LHD be good, call it LHD+. Ideally some kind of assault carrier should be the the goal. Able to preform its LHD role and land troops but also handle a wing of F35bs at least and throw in a vertical missile cell next to the ski jump.
I am surprised that the ADF would be so rigid in their strategic and tactical thinking. I would hope that they are all around the potential of these ships. It is my sincere hope that they rust in peace.
Just how our command always is, they always react after the fact.
A moron would not train for the unplanned and unexpected, such as launching and landing F35b,s. But moronic can regularly used to describe military leadership.
Especially for a country that used to have 2 aircraft carriers that operated for 30 years and during a high tempo high intensity period too.
We don’t have the budget of other countries. We are luckily to have what we’ve already got
Modern ADF leadership has always been way too rigid and way too unambitious. The organisation is currently too top heavy with useless officers and it shows.
Thank you for a well thought out position on the feasibility of using f35bs on the Australian helicopter assault docks, turning them into miniature sea control carriers. I had always assumed that they were too small to sustain that type of operation. But you can definitely see an opportunity presenting itself. Not just an opportunity but a scalable one, the ADF is already working with the USMC regarding amphibious operations, why not invite them to put together a design proposal regarding modifications to permit f35b operations. You could even invite them onboard to implement the proposal using their f35bs. Afterall didn't they deploy onboard the HMS QE recently? It would save on r & d costs and this new mutual defense agreement should be worth something and they would be using their airplanes. Costs would be low for the ADF and the Americans can justify their costs to their own tax payers. And if the USMC proves the concept the ADF can place the order.
hey mate love the videos!
Request/Recommendation: can you do a video of what you think the next large scale conflict could be and how it would play out, also what part(s) would Australia play?
Excellent Video. After reading "sharky" Wards book on his Experiences in the Falklands war with the Harrier, i find it particulary interesting that the F35 can replicate the capabilities of an AWACS, because the lack of such a system was a mayor porblem for the british according to him in the falklands campaigne.
Excellent video, detailed and articulate- well done!. I hope they do go with the option of making raaf deployable on Canberra. I'm sure it's possible to economically upgrade the ship, our own hms ocean lhd was a converted commercial ship & it served us well! Just don't get the French to convert it (like your subs), it may take 15 years! 😀
RFA Argus is a converted commercial ship. HMS Ocean was essentially the same as the Invincible class minus the ramp but simplified inside with more commercial spec when building. It wasn't a commercial conversion.
That post alone was worthy of a sub, i look forward to watching more
What a great deep dive into this topic! Would love to hear your thoughts on the US first fleet being possibly recreated and based in Australia. There was some talk a few months ago.
Do you have a link? I’ve never heard of this
I’m Australian army and know of this yes they will be
I think this is very close. Possessing super carrier performance this sort of arrangement would be extremely advantageous to the Indian Pacific security forces. Other options such as leaseback simply wouldn’t be possible politically or financially in Australia. But since our systems are fully compliant with the Aegis systems, integration would not be overly onerous. The Indian Pacific region drastically needs this sort of fire power particularly in the areas of air to sea and sea to sea fully operational ordinance and delivery platforms. Coordination and operational integrity between all of those nations in the Indian Pacific must be quickly and efficiently established.
Its between Australia and Singapore If the US Navy reactivates the First Fleet.
As the recent submarine decision showed, our priorities have changed. Japan has upgraded their helicopter carriers for f-35b, and we should too.They have similar upgrade needs (deck coatings, magazines, etc) are not costing anywhere near $500 million (I think a figure of $30 million per vessel was mentioned elsewhere).
With current military thinking revolving around distributed operations, allied forces need as many aircraft launching points as possible. Another 2 from Australia would certainly be very welcome.
The defence of the Australian mainland is not the scenario that planners should be thinking about. A multi-nation operation in defence of Taiwan is the more realistic eventuality that we could face in the medium term. In that context, our LHDs would contribute a lot more to the effort acting as light carriers with F-35bs.
The maintenance costs of two aircraft carriers with 24 fighter jets can be fully financed by Australia. Each ship could be accompanied by two frigates, a nuclear submarine and auxiliary vessels.
Australia also has 2-Hobart destroyers.
Interesting and very informative as always. I have been wating for you to release your video, cant wait for the next one! By the way, I ask again for you Q&A videos, do you think NZ is pulling its weight militarily or do you think they are due to start investing more in their military as Australia is doing?
I remember reading an Article in [I think the Defence Journal] at the time the then Labor Gubment had just negotiated the contract with Spain....The Labor Defence Minister, catagorically repudiated all elements in the Aus LHD and they were to be NOT built with the Magazines, Fuel, Squadron requirements of a Fixed Wing capability....they were very proud of themselves having done so, as it substantially [?] 'reduced' the cost of our two LHD's.....The Navy well knows the advantages of a CAP over a Taskgroup....and the abilities of the F-35 are breathtaking vis a vee, it's sensor suite.
I hope Peter Dutton watches this video. I absolutely agree with the thesis. Great stuff.
Excellent video! Just found your channel recently and have very much been enjoying it. Multirole vessel + 5th gen multirole fighter sounds like a solid idea to me, considering everything you've laid out in this video is correct 💪. It would open up countless possibilities, and increase the capabilities of the ADF. Spain and UK are good examples. F35B would definitely be something you'd want to have in your toolbox if war with China is a looming possibility. It would likely act as deterrent to them, as well. Considering your proximity to the South China Sea, I think having this capability is a no-brainer. In a conflict with China, Australia would be at the forefront. Having a naval/amphibious F-35B FOB capability would be critical for Australia and the Western Alliance as a whole, and could (likely imo) change the course of said conflict. A very common sense statement made in this video and one I very much agree with.
*EDIT:* To be clear: Yes, I am American, and no... To me, this is not about my country making more money from the sale of more F-35s'. Actually, there are some nations that I would rather my country not even consider selling the F35 to. However, I do think it's a smart move for our close allies to have the F-35, as they are genuinely the best option and it makes us stronger as a whole. Also: Yes, I'm aware that Australia has the F-35A. Just thought I'd shut that down in advance, because I've had that absurd "argument" thrown at me in the comments regarding the F35 before.
Also one for the plus column, at least some F-35B's in the fleet gives the RAAF a very flexible expeditionary air wing. To continue your Falklands capability comparison harriers flying from the carriers were able to refuel and re-arm from what was basically a helicopter FOB on the Island to drastically increase time on station once that beachhead was secure. Likewise once the Islands were full recaptured Harriers were the only fighters able to fly air defence from the short runway at Stanley until it was lengthened for RAF Phantoms.
Or the ability to operate from smaller austere strips on the mainland or the islands such as Cocos, Norfolk etc.. away from the established bases and hidden away.
Shackvan: The carriers were designed to operate with Harriers aboard. The Falklands operation did not require any changes.
Very intelligent and well thought out analysis. Hopefully somebody in Canberra will have look into this. If History shows anything, they who control the high ground wins. This has been true in every conflict in the last 120 years, but especially true of WW2, where airpower and close airsupport superiority shattered the Axis ground and Naval forces.
Naval forces can not makeover effectively in a high intensity conflict without organic airpower.
One of the best military analysis video ever.
Clear, informative and well presented, great stuff! 👍👍
Well thought out arguement on a clearly superior civilian/military channel. The UK has the two supercarriers - but we need a lot more commitment to defence right now, especially as we are returning to "East of Suez" in our new more global role. The new AUKUS pact is a real step forward and I look forward to hearing what you make of it. Subbed! (pardon the pun, lol).
Also another though, with our development of the Loyal Wingman we could deploy a squadron of these to support the F-35B and MH-90 helicopters deployed from the Canberra Class
The loyal wingman drone does not have short take off and landing capability
@@peterprovenzano9039 fair, i keep thinking it’s a small drone; but it’s comparable to some fighters on the market
@@peterprovenzano9039 They are presumably light enough to use the ski ramp already there and a small light arrestor system across the deck shouldn't be a major issue for normal trap landings.
@@marksita76 Having wire arrestor gear would be extremely dangerous without an angled flight deck. Also the flight deck of the Canberra class would also be too small and too short for it.
It'd be safer, easier and more logical to modify the Loyal Wingman to have a STO/VL capability.
Very intelligent and non-biased video. Where are all the f35b-on-the-Canberra-Class haters in this comment section?
F35B is only inferior to the F35A for the RAAF if it’s air bases are intact. With Australia’s lack of a heavyweight SAM capability this is a somewhat tenuous assumption.
This is the most thorough and convincing military analysis video I've seen.
Nice analysis bro. Now just to learn pronunciation on the word Juan! 😉😂
Keep up the good work! 👌🏻
Having served on Canberra, I was told that the flight deck was built thinner to reduce weight and cost and as a result only has 2 strong points which can accommodate at max 1 x Chinook per strong point. Therefore, the 'thinner parts of the flight deck may not be at the required safe standard to handle a potential constant blast from a jet engine when conducting a vertical landing or continuous take offs. To strengthen the deck would take considerable time and funding.
That was my understanding too. I think this video understates the logistics behind turning the LHDs into light carriers.
So they wouldn't spec with the ski jump removed due to re-engineering including changes in balance/weight, but were happy to significantly change the thickness and hence weight of the deck? That doesn't stack up, and such claims surely need a reliable source to be used as an argument.
@@toowens5678 yep, ramp would take significant structual changes including inside. So lightening the deck was a much cheaper option.
Interesting and tragic. They should have future proofed it. 👍
In the current (and likely long term future) strategic environment, and with speedy deployment by the USA certainly not a given, Australia cannot overspend on our naval capability. I know there are also practical limits on Australia’s federal budget, but I’d support two light carriers, perhaps from Japan or Korea where they don’t take two decades to deliver a light carrier.
And our current centres of excellence developing combat/attack, defensive and surveillance drones should have their investments doubled and accelerated. A homegrown drone design and manufacturing capability is very important.
Specifically need to make sure we can manufacture anything that is expendable like missiles and drones within out own borders and within our own resources.
We are already going to be manufacturing the American's 'loyal wingman drones for use with these and other aircraft here by the sounds of things.
So we will likely be purchasing those.
The Loyal Wingman is an Australian designed and manufactured here by Boeing. It is the only type of its' type in the world at this time.
Honestly, buying those subs from France and not Japan was a massive mistake. One that needs a royal commission to investigate.
Watch this for more info
ruclips.net/video/g2vnciriE_Q/видео.html
Don't bother with aircraft carriers,the Chinese will come to you
Another excellent video mate. Thoroughly researched and reasoned. Well done, much appreciated.
Take a bow, Sir. Your presentation is worthy of a GAO meeting, and provides some key insights for the laypeople who watch your channel.
I particularly appreciate your reasonable skepticism regarding the risks and benefits of the F-35 platform, elements of which still plague the units deployed throughout the US armed forces and currently prevent the vehicle from fulfilling its advertised potential. Having said that, embarking on an indigenous program for manufacturing an Australian 5th generation fighter seems like a non-starter, and replacement/refurbishment of current aircraft inventory with 4th generation updates is merely kicking the can down the road while potentially introducing capability gaps in Australia's force structure.
The rapid expansion of Chinese naval manufacturing and ops tempo places significant stress on the Australian military budget for reasons that you summarized, and the far-reaching implications of the subsequent strategic picture: any reasonable assumption that the RAN can rely on its allies must be tempered by the reality that the current anti-access area denial posture developed by the PLAN means that US forces will literally need to "fight to get to the fight", and then face the challenge of persistent operations in a high threat environment where the opponent retains a superior logistical advantage.
Considering the potential long-lead times of materials and operational testing, billions spent now to upgrade the Canberra class may ultimately save ten-fold later, but there are also many unknowns. That is the difficult message that Australian politicians and military leaders must convey accurately and honestly to the citizens they govern.
Nice and very interesting video!. Greetings from Spain.
Wow! If you’re looking for well researched and well presented content this is the channel to be at! Thank you for providing us with so much great content!
I think it would be short-changing the Australian Navy to settle with conversion of a helicopter dock to use F-35Bs. It would be far better for the RAN to commission and produce a fully capable and tailored aircraft carrier design that fully fits alongside the amphibious efforts and capabilities that are being built. Not only would this fully round out the RAN forces capability, but would also build on the Australian Naval construction capabilities that have gone through massive improvement.
While Australia can launch aircraft from most of its landmass, protecting Australia is best done by protecting its neighbours and a fully capable carrier would give a much better capability to do that alongside its neighbours own forces.
Might be a stretch but something that sort of takes the best things of the Gerald R Ford and Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers with some extras could be a good place to start.
This is a superior video factual and thought provoking. Who would want to shoulder responsibility for a decision like this ? Whatever Oz deserves the best.
I never seen a F35B look so mean as the one tied down with the under wing load out 👀😲
If the LHDs were to truly be deployed for amphibious warfare as designed, having a fixed wing capability on hand to assist in fire suppression + creating a beach head would be a huge benefit to the amphibious operation. Both with strike missions and air superiority. They would essentially protect the amphibious force and help remove any intial resistance and make them a far more effective capability.
I've been itching to say this, but you beat me to it. A squadron of F35bs would give the amphibious force an additional layer of protection. There are so many lives and equipment at stake. Since you have the ship and the planes are available for purchase, this capability is like a must.
Wow, this is really an excellent analysis. Really well done, thank you. I hope our defence forces are looking at this seriously.
Bring back HMAS Melbourne. Just purchase 2 more flat tops and use for f35b ops when required. Dedicated ships are always the best. 1.5Billion each is cheap over 35 years. Purchase 2. Purchase f35b and heli's and when the need arises put the f35b on top of them and sail.
Hmas Melbourne was scrapped, we also don’t have enough supply ships, and destroyers and frigates to guard and support four amphibious warfare/ light carrier ships
@@Lightning_studios437 I know HMAS Melbourne was scrapped im just advising that we should build 2 more flat tops and call one Melbourne.
Also with regards to not having enough ships/ supply/AWD and frigates look at HMS Queen Elizabeth. She has a mutil national fleet sailing with her. I think we can manage 2 more flat tops. It would bolster the navy and when need the F35b can take off from RAAF Base whatever and join the task force when required.
@@Datalore74 + A group of 9 ships, 2 of which are not Royal Navy, which are 1 USN and 1 RNN.
@@henryvagincourt4502 yeah correct. We could do that too. Increase cooperation with our partners.
A not so fun fact, but the HMAS Melbourne was scrapped in China and alongside a number of Russian Aircraft Carriers was studied to help the PLAN develop their own carriers.
Very interesting and food for thought. The F-35B I thought was a modern Harrier which could take off and land anywhere, no airstrip or ship required.
If so it would certainly be good to have few F35Bs in our kit.
Am I right?
Secondly, the distance hypothetical for the F-35A made me think of forward bases and what is going on with the Manus Island joint Aust/US base?
Cheers from an Armchair Pontificator.
Do you think it could be worth more to Australia to develop a third Canberra class ship specifically to launch f35bs or spread the capability out across the 2-3 lhds we have and also as the regional threat rises should a Australia seriously consider having its own dedicated carrier force?
A year late but personally I think that the flexibility of a single fighter wing of F35b craft would dramatically improve our military's capability even in a simple recon ability.
Apart from that there are tiny airstrips all over the Pacific neighbours we would be fighting along side and on Norfolk island etc that are suitable for the 35b but not a Super Hornet or 35a.
Ultimately it gives us an enormous amount of flexibility and at the very least we should prepare our current LHD Canberra class vessels to accommodate this capacity. In the event of a war in he south Pacific, having that flexibility is an invaluable asset.
I remember during the building and receipt of the Canberra class ships the idea of them being used as carriers was talked about since they are based on the Spanish carrier. It was stated at the time this was NOT possible due to one modification to the Spanish vessel into the Australian vessel which means the flight deck not only is unsuitable due to not having the heat resistance required for jet operations but it is also not structurally re enforced enough to take the weight and stress of take-offs and landings.
This to me is a lost option to add to our defence forces but not all is lost if the government were to replace the older and due to retire amphib ships with modified Canberra class ships or something better the idea of an air wing based on naval ships is as sound now as it was post WW2. During the time of Vietnam HMAS Sydney was transformed into a supply ship and carried no aircraft only HMAS Melbourne retained its aircraft till it was retired at about the same time as HMAS Sydney.
The RAAF will always try to rule over all flying assets as it did up until the Blackhawks were acquired by the RAAF for the army this initially was because they claimed the army had no infrastructure to fly and maintain the UH-1s and that their replacements should stay with the RAAF which the Army always was opposed to from initial delivery of the UH-1s.
Further to this when the fleet air arm was disbanded the RAAF was at the time fighting to have the fleet air arm squadrons become part of the RAAF so that the capability would be maintained even if we had no aircraft capable of being deployed on a non existent carrier. This was part of the reason that the F-111 we acquired was a combination of the USAF F-111A and the never built US Navy F-111B, our F-111Cs all had arrester hooks and this was required incase they were to ever be needed to be used from a future carrier purchase.
So if some sort of fleet air arm was to be reborn i would expect the RAAF to try to combine it into the RAAF and even to use the RAF/RN manning of the Queen Elizabeth class carriers as justification of their stance. My personal belief is that a similar RAAF/RAN combined manning of a carrier would not be as good as if the RAN had its own fleet air arm, IF the maintenance and training was carried out at some sort of joint servicing and training establishment, this is similar to what was done with Blackhawk where the Army was also looking after the navy seahawks and the civilian contractors used for blackhawk were also used for seahawk.
You're videos are unique in the fact that you seem to be pretty non partisan and present all of the information given in the context of the world around the information, I've noticed this with channels that are Australian and Canadian, specifically. Any thoughts on why these specific countries seem to provide accurate and neutral input?
Accurate and neutral for channels from those 2 countries? Apparently that is in the eye of the beholder.
@@stevenguild2707 of course there are more neutral channels from different countries, and there are also ones that are very partisan from australia and canada, however I've seen more channels from these places that are neutral than not.
When one considers the capabilities of the F35B, only a peer or very near peer opponent would be capable of effectively countering a dozen of them.
Add to that, the near certainty that confrontation with such an opponent would involve Australia's allies & deploying a squadron would add greatly to the combat effectiveness in such a scenario.
Thanks for giving your views on military matters in such a clear & concise manner.
Good analysis of the pros and cons of the F-35B on the Canberra class LSD. Now that both Japan and South Korea have committed to converting their ships and/or building new carriers specifically for F-35B use, it will be very difficult for Australia not to do the same. While the proposed SSN acquisition will put the RAN on a level above the two stated peers, the fact that the RAN won't realize operationalizing SSNs for at least another decade will place them at a prestige disadvantage. It may not be wise, but from a peer standpoint, having similar ships yet not the aircraft to operate on them makes the RAN look inferior. Now that the SSN pathway has been forged, I fully expect that the RAAF will order 24 F-35Bs for shipboard use.
Navantia Australia already have the plans, so build two new ones for stovl ops, or alternatively join with Japan and Sth Korea and get the US to build 3 small carriers (they have world best expertise). Manpower recruitment wouldn’t be a problem if they drop the gender ratios. I personally know of 12 young men who can’t enlist because they are the wrong gender. The cost to it all is immaterial because if China comes storming down the straights we won’t have ANYTHING anyway, great presentation by the way.
This is top notch stuff. Bravo. 👏
5:15 - I’d like to see your hypothetical model expanded so that one of the two (or three if Choules is replaced by another LHD) embarks a flight of 4 F35s as standard, in much the same way as the US Marine expeditionary units include a flight of 4 F35Bs as standard on one of the US Navy’s LHDs that is assigned to that expeditionary unit. This standard embankment could be rotated on an annual basis between LHDs, with one of the other LHDs capable of surging a small squadron worth of F35Bs - much like the Americans can do with their LHDs. Lastly, rather than cutting short No.1 squadrons use of FA18Fs by a decade, I’d reform No.76 squadron (disbanded in the late 1960s) as a joint RAAF/RAN squadron based out of HMAS Albatross in South Nowra. I’d assign 28-36 F35Bs to this joint squadron, which would include a conversion flight (in much the same way as No.6 squadron incorporates a super hornet conversion flight alongside its Growler operations).
Great idea.
76 SQN already is an active squadron. It conducts LIF training on the Hawk 127 out of RAAF Williamtown. Where do you people come from????????
@@B61Mod12 sorry. For some reason I thought it was still removed from our order of battle. No need to get your knickers in a knot.
@@andrewmetcalfe9898 Active for the past 32 years. Lol.
@@B61Mod12 ok smarty pants. Watevrs
HMS Invincible class STOVL Sea Harrier equipt pocket carriers were considered to be basically useless by the USN. And then they proved to be invaluable for fleet protection and decisive in The Falklands War. Combat air patrol was heavily relied upon to protect RN assets from land based aircraft in The Mediterranian in WW2. The electronic warfare capabilities of the F35B allow it to simultainously fill the same roles of the USN's Growler and fighter attack role of the Superhornet. Buying 2 aircraft carriers and then using them as "undefended troop transports" sounds like something that The RCN would do.
@tim,
With the increasing threat in China and Russia.
Would it make sense to continue using the Tiger airframe while also buying the Apache helicopters.
It seems that like the Collins Class, the Tiger is now a mature and successful vehicle after a early history of issues and flaws.
I feel that the Tiger could fill a light recon attack role, where the Apache could fill the gap of a dedicated attack helicopter
Or give them to the RAN along with the older F18,a cost f/all.
It makes no military or logistical sense to maintain two types of helicopters in the inventory when they do the same mission and the apache does it better. Australia will save money by retiring the Tiger and not continue supporting it.
@@cattledog901 it's a shame the Tigers weren't used to good use
Interestingly, under AUKUS, Australia could use the UK Designed Bedford Array Landing System, which the USMC funded to provide a Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing System for Harrier & F-35B on its LHD Fleet, since further modified into 'Magic Carpet' used on USN CATOBAR Carriers. This system allows STOVL Aircraft to return with greater unused Ordnance and Fuel, which would otherwise be jettisoned before a Vertical Landing, as well as reducing maintenance and wear on the airframes from the shock of a Vertical Landing.
As SRVL was demonstrated and perfected on Charles de Gaulle and HMS Illustrious (a smaller carrier than Canberra Class), this would not be an issue for a Light Carrier Mission for RAN.
The Sortie Rate is also improved, as its quicker to land and taxi from SRVL than a Vertical Landing, but also the number of sorties would also be improved with the fuel savings from using SRVL Operations.
As I understand it the USM is yet to install the Aircraft and Ship Sensors/Cameras/Computers & Software for SRVL on its own LHDs, but obviously the system was designed for this purpose, and its a proven system on QE Carriers.
In June 2000 a study was presented at the Amphibious Warfare conference held at Randwick army barracks in Sydney. The proposal by Peter Clark and Stephen Kretschmer of the concepts section of the Directorate of Naval Platform Systems was for a range of Multi role auxiliary (MRA). Three versions were developed using a common hull, a Replenishment ship, Amphibious lift and a Aircraft platform. The aircraft platform had a ships crew of 225 plus whatever the air wing personnel would have been, pictures show the ship launching a F/A-18 a classic hornet. If this was taken up by the Howard government at the time a ship could have carried Super Hornets or if they were too large and limiting numbers it could have instead of operated the Rafael or the navalised gripen fighter that Brazil thought about around 2010. The Navy magazine put out by The Navy league of Australia and Australians Warship Review in 2000 both had articles on these ships dubbed the LSS, The littoral support ship. Too late now but just another example of lost opportunities
One thing I want to know and please forgive me for my ignorance but dose the RAN have fixed wing air craft or a dedicated carrier.
As it was unclear in the video.
Secondly if the answer to my first question is negative, why don't they look at buying a Queen Elizabeth class carrier, as given the rising tentions in the indopacifc would that not add much needed capacity to The RAN.
Third if they are unwilling to by F35s why not the USMC harriers yes some what older airframes but still good aircraft for that region of the world. Given that the USMC harriers are the result of the UK futer life program would that not be a cheaper option the the F35s
Please feel free to correct anything I gave said as I am more of a army buff then a navy one
Can you make a video on the Hobart Class Destroyers?
Yeah mate It’s on the list
My memory of this is that Tony Abbott seemed to have considered the option of using the LHD as aircraft carriers for the F-35, and the response was, it was to expensive and required modifications to the deck to sustain thermal requirements.
None of that was open source IIRC, just background to media. And from what I’ve seen, the thermal problem is managed by a new deck coating, not “strengthening”, so it’s not exactly convincing. Basically if you look at a wasp class, which has the same problem, they just use a patch of thermion coating for the landing area. This coating is only marginally more expensive than their typical marine coating if you look at their website.
That's bs, it just needs some new heat proof paint
I admit that I’m biased towards getting the F35B.
That was a great presentation discussing facts. And I literally laughed out loud with the question of “Shouldn’t we just rely on our Allies” The cost analysis is very confronting and makes the argument for them more than justified and I dare say that relying on land based fighters as possibly unreliable.
Well done- I loved the timing of the pic of Yamamoto and was thinking- so true!
I would love to hear your thoughts on the RAA Apache acquisition, and the denuclearised submarine choice.
Nice work, thanks!
Check out his TikTok. Its been covered there
RAA? They usually just bring me a new battery when mine dies in my car! Imagine Longbow support choppering in a new battery on the highway! That’ll clear the traffic 😂
RAA? What is that? If you are calling The Australian Army the Royal Australian Army it's actually incorrect
Additional factor I didn't see here is the take-of weight. I cannot find good stats but it seems even the faster and longer QE carrier may not be able to launch the F35B with full weapon load and fuel even when steaming into wind. If (for arguments sake) the Canberra can launch with 1/2 fuel and 1/2 weapons this changes the calculations (potentially tipping the scale)
you should take a look at the Italian navy-airforce joint f35b force, 2 squadrons of 15 jets each, a total force of 30 jets. The two services use their jets for different purposes but they are occasionally deployed together (under the command of a general when operating from FOBs and under the command of an admiral when operating from the carrier Cavour or the lhd Trieste). During exercise Pitch Black 2024 navy and Air Force jets will be deployed onboard the carrier alongside navy's av8b.
You are so, so right! China is reason enough..F-35Bs would be a huge asset just from the sensor suite alone notwithstanding stealth! Politicians have so let down countries in the west and I some times think they have become so blinded in thinking all that matters is them rather than the people they serve. I'm from the UK and finally we seem to be taking steps to rebuild the Navy. This procurement would also benefit the Australian economy both in terms of jobs but also in terms of skills and knowledge and a proper fixed wing carrier capability. Finally having your own mix of defensive capabilities with a proper small carrier based F-35B's is absolutely critical in these times and flexibility is the key and the F-35B gives you flexibility.
I support a fixed wing element, however current ADF force structure does not envisage this. The ADF chose an Amphib capability as being a higher priority than a Lite Carrier. They decided ADF land based airpower would be adequate for the expected operating environment of the vessels, alternatively naval based airpower may/might be provided by an allied nation.
Today there are only 3 ships available, though only two could possibly embark STVOL. The scenario you have discussed fails to account on fleet availability, as they age you can expect at least one to be in refit/mid-life at any one time. If Amphib is the priority then the two available vessels will be required for that role.
I actually think a squadron or two of Loyal Wingman drones deploying when required would be perfect for this instead if the F-35. Food for thought.🤔
The first Canberra class was ordered in 2004. The F-35B was not available outside the US until 2022. The ADF probably hasn't yet made a decision about using F-35Bs on the Canberra Class. Lead times are several years.
Brilliant video essay, well researched and presented.
Excellent - naval aviation has always been very expensive. However given they are flying f35, then adopting b models is VASTLY easier to do. Significant overlap exists. And those b models are not only limited to the ships. And now Air to Air refueling is possible with v22's.
Falklands shows what a ship with just 12 jets can achieve. And you nailed the issue of AWACS abilities that the f35b has - pilot's have noted that the f35b in some ways is better than a AWACS.
Some form of air power in conflicts is a must have ability, and using Land based air power is not even close to viability. USA LHA ships have done multiple 6 week deployments of f35b ships. They found fantastic up time and maintenance of the f35b took less ground crews times then flying a f16! They had no issues flying the f35b and they didn't see additional labor or issues compared to flying Harriers. But with a stealth supersonic jet? 12 such jets is game changer - and is in fact a very formable air wing. Their networking ability and that of providing long range fire and control systems for ships changes everything.
@Drew Peacock
Not an argument - you should try one.
The readers here can't read your mind - so you have to point out what issues, facts or what you are disagreeing with. Maybe it was the quotes about how the F35 is better then a AWACS? Sure, lets quote some REAL pilots on this matter - shall we?
LtCol. Tucker “Cinco” Hamilton]
*_It is and just how much information you have about the battlefield okay right like I don't need the AWACS anymore telling me a lot of information like I have more information than they do Wow. which is really quite phenomenal_*
in other words - the pilot is quite much saying that 3 folks in a Hawkeye have LITTLE amounts of information compared to what I have and know already - and I have that information and air battle theater view faster and better then the AWACS. I don't think you grasp the power of networking and information sharing here.
USMC LtCol. Dave “Chip” Berke] A:
*_If you were to just take all the sensors, on an f-35 and can't say what the bandwidth is and what the range is I'm not gonna tell you what they cover but if you just take all the sensors, and kind of draw them out I'm like how far they would reach and how wide in a band they would reach and what bands. that are in and lay them down and compare them to any other fighter in the world have F-35 anything else to include the f-22_*
And he goes on to say:
*_the amount of available information in different bands in different bandwidths and in different regimes. it is infinitely greater in an f-35 you have so much more information and then through fusion you're sharing and collaborating with all the other airplanes out there. it is impossible if you are a fourth gen to understand without seeing it from the inside and how much more awareness that you have_*
So, the F35 represents a new way of thinking - and those F35 pilots already see more, and have more information then what the AWACS could ever hope to provide them.
But, maybe you were not talking about my AWACS claim - perhaps there was something else you were disagreeing with - you have to share what that issue or fact or points I made that you disagree with - in other words, you have to make a basic argument to up-hold your position here.
@Drew Peacock
Well, if you not making a valid intellectual augments then, would that not be a quite much what we would call a shill here then? If you preaching here that shills are all some big of a moral wrong - then why are you shilling here and not providing any facts then? how about you practice what you are preaching here then? Pot calling kettle black week for you? Hum?
@Drew Peacock
Look dude - learn to read. The multiple 6 week deployments of F35b has ZERO to do with the issue of MORE hours to fly a F16 - I was comparing A models to f16s - but it really don't matter. The B model not showing any differences in per hour maintains cost or extra crew costs.
The multiple deployments?:
*_The lead vessel of the U.S. Navy’s newest class of amphibious assault ships, the USS America, designated Landing Helicopter Assault (LHA) 6, departed San Diego on July 7 for its first regularly scheduled deployment to the Pacific, Middle East, and the Horn of Africa_*
Link:
thediplomat.com/2017/07/us-navys-largest-ever-amphibious-assault-ship-deploys-to-the-asia-pacific/
Got it - multiple deployments - they each last 6 weeks. On a LHA class ship? They don't have big service bays like they do on a super carrier - they can gas up the jets - change tires - they don't (and can't) do complex maintains of those jets.
F35B deployments with OVER 90% availability. In fact that quote is HIGH 90's as outlined by this RAF commander:
ruclips.net/video/bn3SNLDoqIQ/видео.html
I time stamped the video. While that RAF deployment was not on a ship - it was a foreign country deployment - and the up times on the ships vs land based are the same.
the point about the LHA class ships was not to compare to the f16 - it was to point out that how on earth can you fly F35b's on a smaller ship without advanced F35 service bays - clearly they ARE able to do this.
As I stated, the stealth per hour cost and labor is not significant , and is in fact a non issue.
As noted, it takes more ground crew hours to maintain and fly a f16 then it does a F35 right now:.
Cost Element F35 per hour F16 per hour
Unit Level Manpower 8,000 10,000
Unit Operations 5,000 6,000
Maintenance 11,000 6,000
Sustaining Support 3,000 2,000
Continues Systems
Support 2,000 2,000
---- ----
29,000 26,000
2021 CPI indexed:
F16 - 30,383
F35 - 33,888
So right now the F35 has a higher cost per hour, but as you can see in above, less man hours are required to keep the f35 flying. But as noted, the parts and supply costs for the F35 are still dropping. The cost per hour of the F35 has dropped 40% in the last 5 years - and it is still dropping. The f16 already dropped over the past 30 years - it not going to drop in per hour costs - and in fact being older, the per hour labor costs are going up. Parts cost will drop by about 30% - as it has and does for most jets - so the F35 will in fact be quite much on par in regards to cost per hour to fly compared to a f16.
And if the F35 was all oooooh so high to maintain, then you have explain how they are able to fly and maintain 6 F35'bs deployed on a small ship without high level service bays and abelites to repair the F35B on those small ships - they don't have big aircraft service bays and abilities anything CLOSE to a super carrier. So I am noting the B model and deployments on helicopter ships since it not really possible to do much maintains of the F35 B on those ships - so it can't be all that bad - can it? So there is no intention to limit or suggest or hint or imply that the B models are required for this comparison - only that they clearly are able to deploy F35's in what amounts to low maintains environments - JUST like the UK deployment was in the middle east - and their commander noted over 90% up times.
@Drew Peacock
Missed this. What on earth are you taking about? The figures are cost figures - not ALL of those items are hours of labor. But since the labor cost is the same in both cases? Then you get MORE hours of labor. the PARTS quoted number is 10,000 (f35) vs 8000 (f16). that is the cost of parts etc - not labor costs. Unit manpower IS LABOR.
Labor cost from that quote?
F35: 8000
F16: 10,000
learn to read!!!
The latest government figures 2020 show that the F35 is less to run per hour then a F15, and less to run per hour then a F18.
so, quote: (not from some blog, or your mon's basement), we have these numbers:
First the official government link:
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Management and Comptroller: YEAR 2020
comptroller.defense.gov/Financial-Management/Reports/rates2020/
Air Force Numbers:
F-15C $22,489
F15D $21,745
F15e $17,408
F22 $40,385
F35A $16,952
navy numbers:
F18C $18,056
F18D $18,048
F18F $13,654
F35C $13,124
You can't go quote 5+ year old numbers - they are misleading since the F35 was new on military bases - new engine racks, new tow bars, new flight simulators, new battery cables, new part shelves - a long list.
In just 5 years the per hour cost of the F35 has dropped 40% - and this is expected.
So quoting 5+ year old per hour costs - they don't count and don't make sense. you can go grab the above numbers on your own. the above is what we call reimbursement rates. that is the rate the military base gets funded to run + fly their jets. If the numbers were wrong, then the military base would run out of money to keep their jets flying. They don't get 40k per hour to fly the F22 if it is not flying. They fly the jet, and then Uncle Sam has to write a check to cover that air base costs. The above are the latest rates and accounting used to pay out money to keep jets flying.
there is ZERO reason why a F18 or a F35 should cost much if any different to fly per hour. And the above shows they are about the same - and the older f18's show quite a bit more per hour cost to run - and that also makes sense.
@Drew Peacock
Ok, so lets take these one at a time.
>OK so I misspoke. Even by YOUR OWN figures though the F-35 costs almost twice as much per hour to maintain than an F-16: $11,000 vs $6,000.
The parts cost is double - but the labor and manpower for the F35 is LESS. So you can NOT lie and state that the F35 has huge amounts of maintains. And the f16 has had 30+ years of supply chain build up - and mutiple re-bids on those supply chains. So, yes, no kidding sherlock - a jet in service for that long no doubt has lower parts costs - it been that way for about 100 years now. What is next, you need to be told that blue skies exist?
Lockheed expects that part cost to drop a further 30%. And again past history shows this to be the case. And we DO SEE the costs coming down - as I stated we seen a drop by 40% for quoted per hour costs.. In fact, if we accept that parts costs will drop by 30%?
If we drop the 11,000 per hour by 30%? Then the cost per hour of flying the F35 is not only comparable to the f16, but it works out to $8,400 for maintains cost.
So now we have $26,400 per hour for the F35, and $26,000 per hour for the f16 (those are un-adjusted without inflation). But it don't matter - you get roughly the SAME cost per hour.
>nowhere does it state in the PDF that the figures given are the flight cost per hour for the various aircraft listed.
yes it does:
The pdf link is this one (direct) from the list of pdfs:
The NAME of the document is this:
Fixed Wing and Helicopter reimbursement rates.
Those rates are MOST certainly the quoted per hour rates. Any blog, magazine worth its salt has and DOES use that document.
As noted, direct link:
comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2020/2020_b_c.pdf
And to quote from that PDF? We have this:
*_The following hourly rates for fixed wing aircraft are effective October 1, 2019, and are to be used
when the applicable aircraft are provided on a reimbursable basis_*
As I stated, this is not only the quoted per hour rates, but IS TO BE USED as how bases get reimbursed. This is the de-facto quote and rate used. It is the actual rates paid out by the comptroller office - and is the per hour rates paid out to run a given jet. THE FACT that the quoted numbers match your numbers for f18's should quite much allow you to figure this out.
As noted, the ONLY jet that shows a substantial lower per hour cost is the f16 - and I explained why. The REAL issue is honesty here. If you going to say that a F35 is really high cost per hour, then you BETTER say the same about the f18, and you BETTER say the same about the F15. Failure to do so is in fact you with FULL knowledge misleading the public. If you JUST quote a f16, and F35? Sure, that makes the F35 look to be high. But if you quote the F35, F18, and F15 as the SAME, and THEN quote the f16? Then at least people walk away knowing that a F35 is not more costly to fly then f18, or f15. Failure to do so means that you don't care about the truth - but ONLY optics to mislead public opinion that the F35 is some kind of outliner of a jet in regards to cost when it simply is not.
Using the USN experiment converting the America from an "amphibious landing ship helicopter carrier" tasked mainly as amphibious transport and support to the "lightning carrier,"
The transformation is not as trivial as this video suggests, and mainly centers on the well deck where all the amphibous vehicles are stored which in theory would be converted mainly into armament and fuel storage. This is the problem why only one and possibly a second America class conversion will be made and none of the other 8 ships in the class are being considered. Any new Lightning carriers will be constructed from scratch for this purpose.
There is an enormous expense and years of downtime required to make the conversion, and is a major commitment. This video probably does a good job listing the reassons for making a change. Australia probably needs to consider as much the loss of an amphibious landing dock as much as it considers adding a much needed, highly capable carrier capability. Of course, any decision won't be fulfilled until 10-15 years from now, it's hard to project what Australia's security needs will be, but considering China's very obvious turn to belligerency on the seas, it's probably clear that Australia needs some kind of carrier capability unless it wants to possibly fint China on its doorstep.
As an aviation buff I would love to see Australia return to having a fleet air arm good point on the f35b having AWAC capabilities .
I was totally unaware of this .
Being interested in all things military as well I have noticed across the world countries beefing up there maritime capabilities and particularly the desire to increase naval power via aircraft and amphibious landers which can convert to small aircraft carriers that you touched on in your presentation .
You can beat it’s the left wing bleeding heart SJW types whom plot against the idea of this for the ADF .
Thanks for a great presentation
Best
MAGOOS kids channel
I'm about as left as it gets before you dive off into communist land and I've always supported this capability.
The opposition comes solely from the centre right who are the bulk of Australians and think 'we aren't at war, why do we need more weapons? Etc'
You can project that bullshit onto people who want more social care all you like but it isn't people who want more support for disadvantaged communities that are opposing this...
great presentation, we should not limit the ship's capabilities, having the ability to provide air cover to a task force group is an obvious consideration that should be taken up or at least the consideration of buying a third ship designed to provide air cover to the 2 LHD's, both LHD's should at least have the ability to also land planes in either scenario.
Your analogy considers a full scale operation of 12 x F25B's but there would be great benefit for being able to just "land - refuel - launch" and maybe re-arm a couple/few of F35B's. These F35B's could be land based and just use the AHD to extend (double) their range.
Great work m8 very informative. Keep up the good work subscribed well done
The Canberra class are missing the forward fuel bunker, which was deleted in favour of more internal deck space
You have a link?
It should work and furthermore the Australian Navy can cross-train with Royal Navy UK Japanese and US Navy carriers that are F-35B equipped future South Korean Navy if Dokdo is also F-35B capable. I wonder if an existing RAAF base in the Perth area can support RAN F-35B squadrons. Current F-35 RAAF bases are around Sydney Brisbane and Darwin.
The fact that Australia has such a great armed forces response group makes me happy to be a part of the commonwealth.
I'd love to see Textron release a carrier capable Scorpion. They would be extremely useful in any landing effort & would significantly extend the Canberra class. The problem with any aircraft discussion is, we really have no idea how much it would cost to retrofit our ships for fixed wing aircraft - of any kind. Light attack aircraft are superior to helicopters for ISR & CAS.
Great video great channel. The negative argument will go right out the window the day the PLAN sends a battle group off the coast of say east timor. The landing ability of your military is a priority for current operations, peace keeping etc in high intensity conflict the ability to have any air cover for a surface task force would be priority.
I'd suggest the cost would be higher than you suggest due to the lack of commonality in the variants. So you'd need significantly more capital investment than just the unit procurement & flight hour costs. That said, I think the reconnaissance capability provided by the F-35B alone would make it worthy of consideration. I'd happily see an investigation into the minimum number of aircraft needed for that sort of role, as well as the resource requirements on the ship.
Eventually these ships will have some form of fixed wing fast jet capability. Whether that’s manned or unmanned, it will happen eventually.
Drones will be far better
Why, oh Why, don't they have flared flight decks. Surely getting through the Panama Canal isn't that important to the RAN!
Surely enhanced deck space would be advantageous for this class of ship?
Help me understand this please.
What we need is a new dedicated Air Craft Carrier.
Im not sure if this is a concern that is still prevalant but it was my understanding there was some hesitation (roughly when the first vessel was comisioned and f35b speculation was at a all time high) on the basis of f35bs in US service showing maintence issues w sea salt exposure (something you would hope would to have been mitigated by this point tho). I also remember Abbott directly enquiring about f35b capability at the time the ships where first entering service and a semi-definitve response from ran being given, but that could just be me misrembering. Fantastic video regardless, you have me trying to find old abc articles now.