Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

[NickD]

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's recent report considering whether Australia should buy F-35Bs to operate off the new Canberra Class LHDs provides a pretty good discussion of the issues around operating small carriers: https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/st ... or-the-adf

As a spoiler alert, the report finds that F-35Bs would be a poor use of money in virtually any feasible situation the RAN is likely to face. The same kinds of principles considered here tend to suggest that Japan and South Korea are also very unlikely to ever retro-fit their helicopter carriers to operate F-35Bs.

[Maromak]

Not to mention I doubt the LHD deck plating could handle the heat of the engine exhaust...

[Dutchie999]

Maybe a stupid question. But what other choice is there besides the F35?

[ckfinite]

Well, this is arguing against the F-35B only, and misses a few relevant points IMO, but more on that later.

For western countries, there are a few options, in no particular order: F-15, F-16, Eurofighter, Gripen, and a wholly new design.

F-15, in its later variants, is bigger, faster, and longer ranged. However, it does not have stealth and is outclassed sensorwise by the F-35.

F-16, also in its later variants, is smaller, about as fast, somewhat shorter ranged, and much less expensive. Again, outclassed in terms of sensors.

Eurofighter is only if you have more money than sense.

Gripen is much much cheaper, but you get much less plane in every way.

A wholly novel design costs 10x as much and 1/2th as good, but you get an indigenous aircraft industry, which may be worth it.

In my view, this article raises issues of carrier usage by F-35B operating beyond the range of F-35A from Australian bases. However, it misses the point, first, that these operations would be wholly impossible without F-35B, and also ignores potential increases in carriage in sortie rate from shorter flight times and distances. While their points that it would not be as effective as possible are valid, I'm not sure that they've sunk the F-35B boat yet.

[Gunner98]

One other 'Plan B' discussed up here in the Great White North is the F-18 E/F Super Hornet. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/can ... ets-05739/

This is for the baseline F-35, not the carrier capable B variant.

B

[DeltaIV]

ORIGINAL: ckfinite
Gripen is much much cheaper, but you get much less plane in every way.

Note that Gripen is around 1/5th of the F-35A's cost (even more compared to B). With STOL and very cheap operational cost (around 20% of the F-35's cost, around 65 of F-16's cost) it is attractive piece of equipment for several countries.

According to the recent Brazil order of Gripen NGs - there's a proposition included for possible cooperation on Sea Gripen variant.

[Vici Supreme]

One other 'Plan B' discussed up here in the Great White North is the F-18 E/F Super Hornet.
This is for the baseline F-35, not the carrier capable B variant.

B

If you ask me, F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Block III (Advanced Super Hornet) is the way to go for Canada in every aspect of a logical future fighter aquisition.

Supreme

[cf_dallas]

ORIGINAL: DeltaIV

ORIGINAL: ckfinite
Gripen is much much cheaper, but you get much less plane in every way.

Note that Gripen is around 1/5th of the F-35A's cost (even more compared to B). With STOL and very cheap operational cost (around 20% of the F-35's cost, around 65 of F-16's cost) it is attractive piece of equipment for several countries.

According to the recent Brazil order of Gripen NGs - there's a proposition included for possible cooperation on Sea Gripen variant.

How much was the Brazil Gripen contract, for how many aircraft?

[magi]

just read an article in Janes about this.... in the end it was suggested that if Australia desired to operate F-35bs at sea... they believed it would be wiser to construct purpose design/built carrier for this ability...... than to use the new LHDs... modified for this aircraft they would be operationally and cost inefficient... it seemed to me.. to be a reasonable argument....

[magi]

Quote.... Maromac
"Not to mention I doubt the LHD deck plating could handle the heat of the engine exhaust"...


this was one of the mods that would have to be done... the others would be far more involved....

[Tomcat84]

ORIGINAL: Dutchie999


Maybe a stupid question. But what other choice is there besides the F35?

helicopter only?

[magi]

ORIGINAL: Tomcat84

ORIGINAL: Dutchie999


Maybe a stupid question. But what other choice is there besides the F35?

helicopter only?

i believe what Dutchie is implying or questioning is.. what other effective choice would there be for an F/A type aircraft.. give it proposed capabilities....

[Tomcat84]

Yak-141? lol

[magi]

kind of looks like a dog.... i think AV8Bs are still a great airplane.....

[DeltaIV]

ORIGINAL: cf_dallas

How much was the Brazil Gripen contract, for how many aircraft?

Apparently, it was around 36, but seems like 'at least' 108 now.

http://www.janes.com/article/45878/braz ... from_rss=1

[Dutchie999]

Well it all depends on who you are planning to fight in the future. If want to go up against SU-35++ and T-50's then nothing short of the F-22 will do. Especially not if the enemy aircraft are backed by a AWACS with low band radar. Then their fighters can fly 'silent' and acquire/target with passive systems such as IRST.

[Casinn]

ORIGINAL: DeltaIV

ORIGINAL: cf_dallas

How much was the Brazil Gripen contract, for how many aircraft?

Apparently, it was around 36, but seems like 'at least' 108 now.

http://www.janes.com/article/45878/braz ... from_rss=1

Nice breakdown of the Brazil Gripen choice
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/bra ... ram-04179/

[Vulcan101]

Well, given the F35 was marketed as a stealth plane with the ability to penetrate enemy airspace with relative impunity it is somewhat offputting that the US Navy are increasing the number of F18G to support them and the USMC are retaining their EA6B's and adding additional EA6's from US Navy stocks as they are retired.

Which is fine if you happen to be involved in coalition ops with the US but if you aren't and facing double digit SAMs and the latest Russian fighters I take it that means you are SOL.

[batek688]

As mentioned above, the simple answer to the question lies in evaluating the threat. Are they looking to strike a Tier 1 air defense? If so, then that implies a need for the F35 -- but if and only if the desire is to do that alone. Now, I may be biased; however, in about 3 decades+ I haven't seen any country take on that type of thing other than the US. Even when it was the UN calling for it. Now, couple that with the number of "tier 1 air defenses" out there and the justification for an F35 goes down dramatically when you pose the question of what is the probability that <insert your country here> would need to do this when the US was not also involved? Slim and none, and Slim has left the building.

Until those high end platforms like SU-35s are out there in droves, the need for the F35 is limited. Of course, when the opposition can afford all those SU35s, they probably also bought F35s =) I'm not sure we're going to see manned strike-craft too much further in the future. Air superiority where the latency of a drone is a hindrance -- yes, F22. For strike missions? I would anticipate a return to the old Warsaw Pact thinking but through the use of many, multi-million dollar drones versus smaller numbers of multi-billion dollar manned strike aircraft. Why risk a flight of F35s when you can send in 100 Reapers for the same cost?

[Dutchie999]

ORIGINAL: batek688
Until those high end platforms like SU-35s are out there in droves, the need for the F35 is limited. Of course, when the opposition can afford all those SU35s, they probably also bought F35s =) I'm not sure we're going to see manned strike-craft too much further in the future. Air superiority where the latency of a drone is a hindrance -- yes, F22. For strike missions? I would anticipate a return to the old Warsaw Pact thinking but through the use of many, multi-million dollar drones versus smaller numbers of multi-billion dollar manned strike aircraft. Why risk a flight of F35s when you can send in 100 Reapers for the same cost?

That basically goes back to the idea that future fighter platforms are just 'bomb trucks' for their A/A missiles.