Australian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Then why insist on the ski jump during the design phase? Why not go JMSDF style and make a proper flat deck?

I don't know why successive governments around the world including the UK who have been carrier pioneers keeping making stupid and silly mistakes when it comes to ski jump and F35B and F35C variants, just get it right for heavens sake

Not to get into the UK fiasco and the U turns they have made now the RAN is doing the same thing?

I mean let's be honest it's not that complicated, you either go ski jump with F35B or CATOBAR with F35C

Add to that the capability versus the cost and decide what you want??

JMSDF has done the best out of the lot perfect design and and a stunning set of LHDs four to be precise

So what is RAN going to do next remove the ski jump ?? Lol

One Prime Ministerial whim down, 997 to go...

Be Happy to trade you for a Barak Obama, I'll even throw in a little boot.

We would happily add a Former Secretary of State/First lady if you need more.

asif iqbal said:

Then why insist on the ski jump during the design phase? Why not go JMSDF style and make a proper flat deck?

Click to expand...

There was no design phase. The Spanish Juan Carlos design was chosen over the French Mistral ostensibly for reasons other than the ski jump. It apparently would've cost more to remove than to keep it.

There never was any suggestion of Australia acquiring F-35B until our illustrious Prime Minister floated the idea about a year ago.

Lethe said:

There was no design phase. The Spanish Juan Carlos design was chosen over the French Mistral ostensibly for reasons other than the ski jump. It apparently would've cost more to remove than to keep it.

There never was any suggestion of Australia acquiring F-35B until our illustrious Prime Minister floated the idea about a year ago.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that make the decision even more asinine? A Juan Carlos w/o jump jets would be akin to buying a sports car as a grocery getter.

kwaigonegin said:

Wouldn't that make the decision even more asinine? A Juan Carlos w/o jump jets would be akin to buying a sports car as a grocery getter.

Click to expand...

You can buy three minivans for that.

kwaigonegin said:

Wouldn't that make the decision even more asinine? A Juan Carlos w/o jump jets would be akin to buying a sports car as a grocery getter.

Click to expand...

I'm fairly suspicious of the reasoning that decided that the cheaper Mistral design wasn't good enough for Australia's needs myself. I would not be at all surprised if it came down to brass and pollies with stars in their eyes at the prospect, however fanciful, of maybe one day flying F-35Bs off the thing. But officially, at least, that isn't why the Juan Carlos design was selected.

kwaigonegin said:

Wouldn't that make the decision even more asinine? A Juan Carlos w/o jump jets would be akin to buying a sports car as a grocery getter.

Click to expand...

Not really; one can still operate small fixed wing UAVs from the ski jump.

Your analogy would work better, say if Juan Carlos with a ski jump is a ute which comes with a towbar (towbar being the ski jump), and assuming that just because one has a towbar then one should buy a personal high end motorboat to go with it (the high end boat being the F-35B).

in other words, we should recognize that in terms of cost, a ski jump isn't exactly that expensive with only minimal compromise to a flight deck which lacks a ski jump. However a wing of F-35Bs requires far more investment and ongoing costs to keep running... compared to the presence of a ski jump.

kwaigonegin said:

That's a damn shame... A nice carrier like that with no teeth! From experience usually the first go around is by far the most telling. If no birds go on this ship, odds are it'll never have them going forward.

I'm always surprised that the bean counters are shocked when someone tells them how much it cost to operate jets off ships.

Do these fools not take those things into account when they signed the contract for aircraft carriers?

Click to expand...

I think it's worth remembering that at there was never a solid decision for RAN to field the F-35B off the Canberra LHDs, and that the only real suggestion to investigate the feasibility of it is very recent.

And of course, the Canberra LHDs at the onset were never meant to primarily act as carriers. They were meant to be LHDs primarily, to hold helicopters, landing craft, vehicles and cargo... The addition of F-35Bs would not have been a simple, low cost purchase. Sure it would have added advanced capabilities to the LHD but also at advanced unit cost and ongoing cost. Yet the lack of F-35Bs on an LHD does not mean the Canberra ships will somehow be impotent or "lacking in full potential" as one might think... they're still massive ships with more sealift, amphibious assault, and naval aviation capability than the RAN has ever had in a single pair of vessels.

In other words, the fact that they've decided not to go for F-35Bs says a lot about the kind of military posture the RAN and ADF are going for overall.