Calum is 100% correct. I hope these quotes by the man who knows more about all this thn anyone else in Australia now permanently dampens all this talk of RAAF Air Combat Group possibly wasting precious resources on "carrier" fantasies. A whole short article from a 'Flight Global' blog first and then a direct quote of CAF in a verbatim question-and-answer interview.
Avalon Australia: could Australia's LHDs one day operate F-35Bs?
Flight Global ^ | February 21, 2011 | Greg Waldron
By Greg Waldron on February 21, 2011
One likely side conversation at next week's Avalon air show is likely to be about the recent launch of the HMAS Canberra in Spain. The Canberra will be Australia's first LHD (landing helicopter dock) and is likely to become operational in 2014, with a sister ship, the HMAS Adelaide, to follow in 2015.
These will be the largest ships the Australian navy has ever operated. With 16-24 helicopters per ship, the pair signals a resurgence of sorts in Australian naval airpower. The helicopters they are likely to carry include the MRH-90 (which recently joined the Projects of Concern list) and the S-70B Seahawk.
Helicopters on ships are, well, a touch ho-hum, but an industry source recently reminded me of the tantalizing possibility that a third ship could be procured and operate as a pure aircraft carrier with an air wing of F-35Bs. In 2008, apparently, the RAN expressed interest in the aircraft carrier idea, though the budget issues here would be considerable - not to mention all the issues with the F-35B itself, not least whether it will actually survive.
During a recent interview with RAAF Air Marshal Mark Binskin, I asked him about the ship's ramp.
"We're just too cheap to take them off," he replied, jokingly. As for whether Australia will buy the F-35B, his answer was an unequivocal "no."
Nonetheless, the ships will retain their ramps, and Spain's Juan Carlos 1, upon which the Australian ships are based, will operate a mixed wing of AV-8B Harriers and helicopters.
My guess? Australia's brass is tentatively interested in the F-35B for both ships, but wants to see how this troubled variant does during its two-year probation period. Alternatively, Australia could be retaining the ramps in order to support USMC F-35B flight ops.
And, no doubt, the RAN is casting its eyes northwards to Dalian, where Russia's former Varyag is being reborn as the Shi Lang.
Second quote and site now begins below.
ADM: Do you envisage any requirement at any time for STOVL F-35s to operate from the LHDs? Not having that capability means one of the major attributes of these expensive ships will not be utilised.
[Chief of Air Force, Air Vice Marshall Mark] Binskin: Again, the White Paper will consider all these things in the Air Combat Capability Review.
I'll put up some general thoughts on this though.
First, you have to consider the supportability issues of the logistics chain, being able to get ordnance, fuel, spares and support, all those sorts of things to a forward-based or ship-based squadron.
Then you have the protection requirements of that squadron.
So if you stop and think about all the support and defence requirements, unless you add proportionately to these capabilities as well, you will probably distort your force's forward position so much that they would be supporting themselves and protecting themselves and not necessarily doing what they're there to do.
All these factors need to be considered.
Additionally, you don't have commonality in platforms; you have different training streams and supportability requirements.
So in broad terms, when people debate STOVL versus conventional I think they tend to forget about all those underlying issues that need to be addressed to ensure a viable capability.
defencesuppliers.net.au/153AA45C-33B7-11DE-BC7E0050568C22C9
