RAAF CAF slams 'his' Air Force!

[back end o' the bus]

Awesome........comparing the bureaucracy of Defence to a bucket of corks!, and stating that when he DOESN'T want something to happen, he sends it through all the designed processes, as that is an absolute guarantee it will NOT succeed!
Too Easy!:D:ugh:

RAAF chief hits out at defence bureaucracy, warns F-35 fighter may not be properly integrated | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/national/raaf-chief-hits-out-at-defence-bureaucracy-warns-f35-fighter-may-not-be-properly-integrated/story-fncynjr2-1226937616404)
Speaking to an audience of military and industry leaders at a Williams Foundation air power dinner, Air Marshal Brown said getting something done in Defence was like dealing with a bucket of corks. He said each cork had to be held down, but if one popped up it was back to square one.

“If I don’t want something to happen in Defence my tactic is to send it on whatever process we have designed, because that is an absolute guarantee that it will not succeed,” Air Marshal Brown said.

[500N]

Back end

Check out the Oz Politics thread, we have been discussing it on there.

What he said is true and needed to be said.

[Ascend Charlie]

Good onya Geoff Brown! He is still displaying the common sense he showed when I taught him to fly helicopters back in 1981. Unfortunately he went on to fly fighters after that, but retained a brain - very unusual for a knucklehead.

Dealing with defence purchases is a highly political thing. The best item we want to buy will get watered down by some politician who wants his electorate to build some part under licence, and the demand to have a special "Australianised" version adds squillions in R&D and adds years and sometimes a decade to the delivery process. We are just too political to buy something off the shelf that already works.

[500N]

I'd love someone to do a study on all the "Australianisations" that have been done over the years versus $$$$ spent and just how useful / required they actually were.


I would also like to know why our requirements are just so different to the US requirements, particularly for helos and taking into account how much we work with the US, joint ops etc.

[clunckdriver]

When he does retire could you folks down under send him to Canada? One only has to spend five minutes around Ottawa to see its a carbon copy of the mess Canada has in procurement for all three of our services,{ which thank God are no longer totally merged into one ineffective abortion}

[500N]

It seems the UK, Aus and Canada seem to suffer the same thing.

I also noticed with a quick google that some other small countries
also suffer it !


Someone did point out that the main reason for MRH90 and Tiger was because they could be built here. I really do have to wonder whether the cost is worth it. Using defence as a job creation scheme is, IMHO the wrong way to procure things.

What are they going to do next, say to Boeing or Airbus that
they have to build the next lot of aircraft here in Aus ?

[TBM-Legend]

The "shining light" for the RAF Pathfinders in WW2 was Don Bennett and he hailed from Toowoomba in Queensland as does the "shining light" for today's RAAF, Geoff Brown.

Well said Geoff and let's hope the pollies listen and act on his prophetic words.:D

[clunckdriver]

Just an end note to my previous post. During the years my wife and I owned a series of flight schools and a charter business we often employed military personnel who were "doing time" at national defense HQ in Ottawa, one of these chaps { Flt Lt} would fly for us in the evenings and weekends was in "procurement", he once stated to us, {on the day he quit and went full time civil flying} that in five years he had "not managed to purchase even a single pencil "as the civil service obstructed every attempted purchase, he now sits at the pointy end of a very big aircraft, is well paid and a very happy man!

[NutLoose]

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2014/05/30/1226937/616324-b5709bda-e7c8-11e3-ba62-a129b4e220c3.jpg


While the original Spanish design LHD was capable of carrying the fighter jet (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/juan-carlos/), the Australian versions have been completed without the equipment necessary to operate fixed-wing aircraft.


Curious, Perhaps the Australians fitted the Ski Ramp to the front on the off chance they may get a bit of snow, or do they use it for running take offs with the AW139's? :E


Speaking to an audience of military and industry leaders at a Williams Foundation air power dinner, Air Marshal Brown said getting something done in Defence was like dealing with a bucket of corks. He said each cork had to be held down, but if one popped up it was back to square one.


Well that's where the problem is, he should have written into the contract that he didn't want any water in his bucket, job done.. all corks at rest and level.

[SpazSinbad]

:} Yes it is weird how the RAAF insisted on buying an LHD or TWO with that skyjumpythingo on the front parts. Who'da thunk. How did they get that past the fwits otherwise involved. What secret plan does the BrownieBoys have for dat LHD? RAAFcrabs get the JUMP on the RANfishheads again. :}

[500N]

No, it is just a typical Australian Def purchasing decision !

I think the saying is "fitted for but not with" !

I am surprised they weren't fitted out unless the option of the F-35 really isn't an option.

[SpazSinbad]

Here's hoping the days of 'fitted for but not with are over' - in the eye of beholder I guess - how long is a piece of string? I had thought that 'why Oz LDHs retained the ski jump' was stuff of legend now. There are many apocryphal stories I cannot confirm however one explanation proffered online in a few official places is that removing the ski jump (being part of the hull) was not feasible due the cost of redesign and whatnot. Much the same as fitting 'cats 'nFlaps' to the CVFs proved. :}

The official RAN LHD website lists two missions as opposed to the FOUR on the Spanish Navy LHD website (one of the missing for the RAN is the Spanish 'aircraft carrier' option). FLOG the DMO all you like - they probably deserve it - but - whatever. The RAN LHDs have been internally modified to carry out the two missions specified on the website. I guess I have to go look it up now.

http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/lhd
"
The ship's roles are to:

embark, transport and deploy an embarked force (Army in the case of the ADF but could equally be an allied Army or Marines), along with their equipment and aviation units, and

carry out/support humanitarian missions.
Therefore the requirement is for a multipurpose ship able to operate in both these roles, but not necessarily simultaneously, owing to the differing configuration requirements."
&
"The ship is a conventional steel mono hull design with the superstructure located on the starboard side of the flight deck..."

[500N]

One of which must surely be to embark and disembark the newly created Amphibious Bn - can't remember which one it is but it isn't the Commandos.

Anyway, it's a far cry from the old rust bucket that used to be used for
Water ops and Landing craft.

[SpazSinbad]

See INFO added above. As I recall this 'newish' website seems to mirror what is on the Spanish Navy website (can be found later). The SKYJUMP (as I recall on the Spanith Site) is 12 degrees - good for and designed for the F-35Bs - Bravo Olay! Whatever....

LHD JUAN CARLOS I (L-61) / Strategic Projection Vessel 04 Mar 2014
"...[LHD] is the largest ship ever built for the Spanish Navy, and she was designed to enable multipurpose operations both Marine and Army, plus serving as aircraft carrier. For that reason, the ship was designed to primarily four distinct roles. Four concepts of operations for which it was designed are the following:
Strategic Projection.
Amphibious Operations.
Alternative Aircraft Carrier.
Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW)...."
Displaying items by tag: Spanish Navy - Buques de Guerra (http://buquesdeguerra.es/en/ships-spanish-navy/amphibious-ships/lhd-juan-carlos-i/itemlist/tag/Spanish%20Navy.html)

[NutLoose]

I wonder if there painting the name out or the ship is abdicating as well.

[SpazSinbad]

<sarcasm on>Yeah I guess that will happen for the Queen Lizzie CVF also <sarcasm off>

Meanwhile back at the Oz LHD rancho F-35B compatabilo here is some more info for youse delectation:

www.defence.gov.au/dmo/publications/LHD_Fact_sheet..pdf (http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/publications/LHD_Fact_sheet..pdf) (0.6Mb)

[SpazSinbad]

I have been told ad nauseam that our Oz LHDs have been internally modified to disallow some of the things the Spanith Navy can do with their LHD as described below (with an interesting insight into the 'sky jump' [referred to as this in illustrations therein] additional usefulness).
Navantia | Strategic Projection Ship | LHD “Juan Carlos I” Spanish Navy
"...The “JUAN CARLOS I” is a single hull ship made of steel with the superstructure on the starboard side. Her design is based on a combination of military and commercial standards and specifications; the structure, equipment and materials follow Lloyd’s Register of Shipping’s civil standards, whilst her combat system, ordnance handling and stowage systems, systems of supply at sea, flight deck and the damage control system follow military standards.

The ship as being designed with four mission profiles:

AMPHIBIOUS SHIP: Capable of transporting a Marine Infantry Force to carry out landing , supporting operations on land.

FORCE PROJECTION SHIP: Transporting forces of any army to a theatre of operations.

AIRCRAFT CARRIER: A temporary platform for carrier-based naval aircraft, acting as a flight deck for strategic projection airborne vectors (Navy’s Air Wing), capable of becoming a temporary platform to substitute the aircraft-carrier, “PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS”, when she is not available due to downtime (repairs, modifications, etc.).

HUMANITARIAN AID OPERATIONS SHIP: NON-WAR operations, humanitarian assistance, evacuation of crisis areas, hospital ship in areas affected by natural disaster, etc.

...For its part, the runway has a 12° gradient or ski-jump afore to facilitate the takeoff of STOVL and to improve the loading capacity of fuel and weaponry....

...The flight deck has been designed to operate, launch, receive and provide support, both day and night, to planes and helicopters such as the third Squadron’s AB-212, the fifth Squadron’s SH-3D, and the ninth Squadron’s AV-8B Harrier II Plus. As well as the aircraft in service with the Navy, the ship is able to receive the Army’s CH-47 Chinook, Eurocopter Cougar and Tiger as well as the NH-90 when it enters into service with the Navy and with the Spanish Army.

In a significant qualitative leap, this ship is also designed to operate with the STOVL version of the JSF, the F-35B Lightning II, if the Spanish Navy decides to acquire this exceptional plane. A touchdown point has also been reserved astern of the flight deck that is specially adapted (in dimensions and resistance) for the special needs of the new V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft.

For the transfer of aircraft between the hanger and the flight deck, the Juan Carlos I has two elevators, each with a capacity of 25 tonnes and sufficient size to be able to carry up to the new F-35B Lightning II, or a helicopter the size of a Chinook. The capacity of the hangar is variable depending on the mission profile. This means an area of 1,000 m2 would be available for an amphibious type profile. This surface area could be increased by a further 2,046 m2, using the upper garage to have greater capacity for the aircraft. This means the hangar would reach 3,000 m2 for an aircraft carrier type profile. The hanger itself, situated further astern, can house up to 12 medium-sized helicopters. In the case of the LHD operating as a temporary aircraft carrier, the vehicles and material would be substituted by between 10 and 12 STOVL planes, as well as the dozen helicopters previously mentioned. In order to provide support for airborne operations, it is estimated that the ship has sufficient fuel, spare parts and arms so that the embarked aircraft could carry out their operations without the ship needing replenishment for up to a maximum of 50 days.

The planned airborne capacity is for her to transport and operate up to 30 aircraft including medium-sized and heavy helicopters in amphibious operation profiles, or between 10 and 12 F-35B planes or AV-8B+, plus a similar number of medium-sized helicopters when acting with an aircraft carrier mission profile at times when the Príncipe de Asturias R-11 is not operational...."

http://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfiles/files/sala_pr/folleto%20LHD_marzo_para%20navantia_ingles.pdf (2.3Mb)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/LHDspainGraphicForeAftCutawayNavantiaFORUM.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/LHDspainGraphicForeAftCutawayNavantiaFORUM.gif.html)

[SpazSinbad]

From our point of view AM Brown is on the far right of the table (facing Senators). Brownie gets his freak on from minute 22 or so....

Senate estimates: F35 Joint Strike Fighters Published on Jun 2, 2014
"In senate estimates, Scott Ludlam asks Australia's Chief Air Marshall about our plan to buy 58 F35 Joint Strike Fighters, but where's the money and are they worth it?"
Senate estimates: F35 Joint Strike Fighters - YouTube

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

CAF rightly smacked down Senator Ludlam at the 25:50 mark...


Ludlam was doing the old teacher and naughty schoolboy routine, and obviously had done little pre-reading/research and had no briefs to any worthwhile level before hand. He was clearly fishing for that political 'gotcha'!


The way members of these Senate committees treat our senior military leadership is disgraceful!

[500N]

Fox

"The way members of these Senate committees treat our senior military leadership is disgraceful!"

In the last few years, especially the last year, our senior military leaders have smacked down pollies regularly and even got apologies from them.

The days of taking crap by them is over and they know it.

[500N]

I like the way he said he has flown a 4th gen jet against a 5th gen jet :ok:

and then pointed out that no one the pollie quotes has done that :O

[rh200]

but where's the money and are they worth it?"

He should have said, "Ask Tony, and well it depends on what armchair expert and flight simulator god you are getting your information from."

[rjtjrt]

Whilst I found Senator Ludlum's questions in the video to mostly be a bit irritating and of course biased towards a Green agenda, he does not need to be a fighter pilot to make it reasonable for him to question the decision to buy the JSF in detail, and I doubt AM Brown thinks so. Ludlum went too far.
It is and should be his duty to hold the public service (and the services) to be accountable.
There have been a number of unfortunate procurement decisions over the years (Australia is not alone in this, and it is to some degree inherent in balancing the conundrum of buying cutting edge vs proven but somewhat down the path towards obsolescence). Lessons appear to have been learned towards not specifying uniquely tailored to Australia variants.
I just wish a senator or someone would have done so when defence ordered the LCM2000, or the SH-2G(A), MRH-90, Tiger ARH, etc.
I, for what it's worth accept the JSF is an appropriate acquisition for the RAAF, if the experts after questioning, maintain that it is.

[SpazSinbad]

Some SOBRE advice from the Gents re F-35Bs on LHDs....

Jump jets on navy's agenda as Tony Abbott orders air strike rethink 03 Jun 2014 David Wroe
"Prime Minister Tony Abbott's order to examine turning the navy's amphibious assault ships into aircraft carriers for jump jets will require a major rethink by Defence, top military brass have indicated.

Facing a Senate hearing on Monday, Defence chiefs said little work had so far been done on the possibility of buying a short take-off and vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter - an idea that has seized the interest of the Prime Minister.

Under questioning by Labor defence spokesman Stephen Conroy, defence chiefs confirmed for the first time that Mr Abbott had asked them to look at the merit of buying the F-35B jump jets under the forthcoming Defence White Paper and accompanying Force Structure Review.

Under the proposal, they would be flown from the navy's two Landing Helicopter Dock amphibious assault ships, which are due to come into service over the next 12 to 18 months.

Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown said the force had not asked for the F-35B but added the idea should be examined along with all other credible options.

"Like all things when you have a new White Paper, you should always examine all sorts of options ... It wasn't something the air force has particularly pushed," he said.

He said significant changes would be needed for the LHD ships to accommodate up to 12 of the fighters.

"One of the big issues with having fixed-wing aeroplanes come back onto a ship is you've actually got to get them back in poor weather, so there would be new radars required on the ship as well as instrument landing systems, so there'd be some extensive modifications around that."

Chief of Navy, Vice-Admiral Ray Griggs, said further modifications to the ship would include making the deck heat resistant, and changes to fuel storage and fuel lines, weapons magazines and classified compartments for storage.

"This has been a fairly superficial examination up until now because there hasn't been a serious consideration of this capability going into the ship."

Chief of the Defence Force, General David Hurley, said it was too early even to say how the F-35B would fit into the Australian Defence Force.

Much work was needed to decide even how useful they would be, how much they would cost and what sacrifices would be needed to buy them.
"I think we're in a situation where a new government has come in, there's a White Paper been evolving for a while ... The Prime Minister has ... a view about a capability he ... thinks might be relevant to the ADF. He's asked us to look at that.

"We have a process in place at the moment that will allow us to have a look at that and depending on where we come out on that process, we would then go into all those technical decisions about nature of ship and force structure implications for the ADF."
Jump jets on navy's agenda as Tony Abbott orders air strike rethink (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/jump-jets-on-navys-agenda-as-tony-abbott-orders-air-strike-rethink-20140603-39gl0.html)

[Brian Abraham]

Air Marshal Brown said getting something done in Defence was like dealing with a bucket of corksPerhaps the source of his frustrations can be found here. Non accountable and unsackable public servants.

There are 56,000 men and women in the Australian Defence Force and a further 25,000 in the reserves. They are supported by about 20,600 public servants.

[SpazSinbad]

'rh200': There is a hoary old story about 'which' and 'what' (repeated on request) but anyway I do not know what/which "flight simulator god" you have in mind however it is quite possible I learnt to fly (with the RAAF initially) with one of dem potential which/whats. :} Frick that was a long time ago now Chief.

[500N]

I wonder how many of those 26,000 are DMO ?

[SpazSinbad]

Brownie stars again.... The first five minutes or so are questions from Sen. Xenephon and then the one hour with GREEN Senator is repeated. If youse have seen that already then drag the bar to One Hour and Five minutes when the old DefMin asks AM Brown questions for five minutes. At the end AM Brown says a recent exercise with Oz Shornets against USAF F-16 Aggressor Squadron (I'll look it up) had a KILL ratio in favour of the Supers at 20:1 GO RAAFie CHAPPies! :-)

F-16s appear in airspace at Amberley Peter Foley | 6th Mar 2014

http://www.qt.com.au/news/f-16s-appear-in-airspace-at-amberley/2189860/

Foreign Affairs Defence & Trade JSF 2 June 2014
Published on Jun 3, 2014 Senator Nick Xenophon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu8G5ABHKc8

[Gnadenburg]

Spaz

Not raining on your parade but what were the Aggressors simulating? Block 15 F16's out of Iswahyudi? What did our guys have? AMRAAM & Wedgetail? From what I watched, AVM Brown was cleverly disingenuous in parts.

He does come across as a capable leader and the RAAF seems to be being molded into an even more highly capable air force.

I appreciate the RAAF's influence of late, as what appeared to be the acceptance of a capability gap previously in a total and premature commitment to JSF was quite a risk. I recall numerous interviews with AVM's ( Shepherd etc ) where the need for an interim fighter and eventually Growler were totally dismissed. Wasn't it an actual civilian push to address the JSF delays and capability gap? So smart questioning of Defence an essential check and balance and I have no problems with the Senators doing their job.

Wow! Jump jets for the RAAF to serve on navy carriers? Smart if it's an mature technology purchase I guess, but who are we fighting and would cruise missiles on AWD's and LHD based attack helicopters not suffice in the region?

[SpazSinbad]

You can be how you wish - my parade is a long way from your rain. Which is a good thing. All I know is what is in the video and what is in the newspaper report. Did you read that?

The Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs has been in the drawer since the beginning. For sure the ADF needs to get onboard with it. I'm not going to whinge about the past. It is very interesting to me that a concept of having a 'poor man fleet defence', particularly to help defend the 'valuable asset' LHD or two, with a small group of F-35Bs during transit of open ocean, or around archipelagos for example, is a good one. Back in 1971-72 I was part of the small VF-805 Squadron onboard HMAS Melbourne (then a specialised ASW carrier with Wessex 31Bs and S2Es) for the purpose described. The Oz precedent is there. With the extra capability for networking that will be present in this new environment, the synergy for the ship and air assets is not bad.

Then the BLEEDin' Moaning RAAF CRABS can f off ashore when they are no longer needed. And we ain't talking about storming the beaches. The Bees are onboard for a short time as described then off to join up with their RAAF support maties ashore.

For sure plans change. First there was going to be only a 100 strong F-35A force. Then 2 doz Supers came along - then a doz Growlers - now there may be some Bees to mix it up again.

If you know anything about RAN history then you will recall that back in the early 1960s the RAN was going to scrap fixed wing by the mid 1960s to have a helo only ASW HMAS Melbourne. Then 'konfrontasi' emerged and minds were changed to 'back to the future' with the mix of aircraft described above, by 1969 (after a lengthy refit for MELBOURNE to cope with the new aircraft). Initially there were only ten Skyhawks with only 8 A4Gs available to be used as described. Later that same mix was doubled for more flexibility and mission changes onboard.

Some F-35Bs onboard are way better than NO F-35Bs onboard our LHDs, as required. And that is stressed again - when required. Mostly they will be ashore in crabland. So the crabs need to know what to do with them. I guess hop skipping and jumping around up north would be one answer. But I do not care about that. Not up to me chief.
______________________________

This is the closest to my idea (and probably goes beyond what I had in mind as stated above) best to read the two part of the article in total, the excerpt is just for the fleet defence concept above, so to speak, and again I stress - not for storming a defended beach as such - not sure if this thread has the 'valuable asset' description of the LHD (for Spain).

F-35B JSF for the ADF—a viable option in the 2015 White Paper? (Part 2) 30 May 2014 Malcolm Davis

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/f-35b-jsf-for-the-adf-a-viable-option-in-the-2015-white-paper-part-2/

"......It’s in countering the advantages bestowed by strategic geography on an adversary practising anti-access operations where a small force of F-35Bs deployed on LHDs might play a significant role. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s key advantages are purported to be stealth, integrated avionics and an ability to network with off-board sensors—all of which contribute to the pilot in the F-35 having an information advantage over an opponent, whether that opponent is in the air, on land or on the sea. If the F-35B is seen as a key node in an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) network that contributes towards an expeditionary force gaining a knowledge advantage at the tactical level, then a force of F-35Bs on board LHDs will add to the joint task force survivability. Information gathered by the sensor systems can be exploited by the F-35B to attack detected targets, or the F-35B can act as a sensor in a ‘sensor to shooter’ link, with the ‘shooter’ being a naval vessel or a submarine. Furthermore, the F-35B can exploit austere bases on land—known as forward arming and refuelling points (FARPs)—to operate in support of naval task forces in archipelagic waters, thus easing operational challenges and risks for the LHDs....

...Only a small number could be carried onboard the LHDs, and at the expense of other important capabilities. But an F-35B acquisition could offer the ADF a more flexible way to undertake the Principal Tasks, even in the face of growing threats from an adversary’s anti-access ability."

Malcolm Davis is assistant professor in International Relations and post-doctoral research fellow in China-Western Relations at Bond University.
_________________

Description from Navantia PDF brochure at location below.

"...The ship has been conceived as a “protected unit” in the sense that her defence is charged specifically to other units that may be submarine, surface or airborne and is in all cases a “valuable unit” because of its nature and the cargo she carries on board. For this reason the weapons on board are limited to four 20 mm cannons that provide moderate close-in self defence. She has a reserve of space and weight so that self-defence weapons may be integrated in a later phase: MK-38 assemblies (automatic system with remote control from the CIC) for asymmetric defence and 2 SEA RAM assemblies for anti-missile defence.

On a Command and Control level, the ship should integrate all the domestic and NATO systems in a wide set of classified networks that confer the capability to act as command ship at brigade level in amphibious operations and even as the naval HQ HRF command ship...."

This URL keeps breaking so here it is in full for copy/paste without the leading 'h': {so add it for working}

ttp://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfiles/files/sala_pr/folleto%20LHD_marzo_para%20navantia_ingles.pdf (http://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfiles/files/sala_pr/folleto%20LHD_marzo_para%20navantia_ingles.pdf) (2.3Mb)

This one may work or it may be broken:
http://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfiles/files/sala_pr/folleto%20LHD_marzo_para%20navantia_ingles.pdf

[500N]

"Wow! Jump jets for the RAAF to serve on navy carriers? Smart if it's an mature technology purchase I guess, but who are we fighting and would cruise missiles on AWD's and LHD based attack helicopters not suffice in the region?"


The thing is, not everything can be done by cruise missiles and Helos.

If they could, the LHD for amphib soldiers and commandos wouldn't be required.


"in the region?""
We don't just operate "in the region" though.
Gulf War 1 being an example.


RAAF, RAN, Army = Joint / Combined ops, was being preached
way back in 1988.

[SpazSinbad]

Transcript of the Oz Senate Session with plenty of bon mots is here:

ParlInfo - Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee : 02/06/2014 : Estimates : DEFENCE PORTFOLIO (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Festimate%2Fc5d6127 5-a1aa-4194-b861-cfe08f848ab3%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2Fc5 d61275-a1aa-4194-b861-cfe08f848ab3%2F0000%22)

There are a lot of words in play. IF using Internet Explorer then open the EDIT window - Find on this page (Ctrl F) "F-35B" without the quotes and the start of the argybargy about F-35Bs on LHDs starts.

0.5Mb PDF 8 pages of the relevant 'Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs' transcript here:

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=18996 OO00oops did not realise the link was broken....

[500N]

One thing I still can't understand - and I haven't yet had a chance to do a full read is why, IF the F-35B was on the cards to be used by Aus off the LHD's did we then get them built WITHOUT all the bits needed for them ?

I know the design was changed to accomodate the Amphib role / helos but not taking into account the F-35B is crazy if we end up using them.

[4Greens]

The US Marine Corps are using the F35B, that is the only endorsement you need. Vertical take off and landing enables operations in poor visibility etc.

[TBM-Legend]

Having the capability to cross-deck with the USMC is also a plus. Remember the RAN has gone from one flattop to none and now two units. They could well be operating in different areas doing different things not just planning a re-run of Iwo Jima...

[500N]

TBM

Aren't the US Marine F35-B's going to be based at Tindal for a period
of time to cross train with the US Marines that come on rotation ?

I am sure I saw a list of different US Aircraft that might be visiting
Tindal as part of this whole training exercise (apart from Jet Black etc).

[GreenKnight121]

Remember the RAN has gone from one flattop to none and now two units.

Actually, from none (pre-February 1949), to one (Sydney February 1949 - December 1952), to two (Sydney & Vengeance December 1952 - October 1955 & Sydney & Melbourne October 1955 - May 1958), to one* (Melbourne May 1958 - June 1982), to none (June 1982>).



* Sydney was Fast Troop Transport/LPH until November 1973.

[SpazSinbad]

Only pages about F-35Bs on LHDs repeat PLUS the chat about buying F-35As from the 02 June 2014 Senate Hearing in Australia PDF attached from original PDF below:

Original PDF: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/c5d61275-a1aa-4194-b861-cfe08f848ab3/toc_pdf/Foreign%20Affairs,%20Defence%20and%20Trade%20Legislation%20C ommittee_2014_06_02_2526.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#sear ch=%22committees/estimate/c5d61275-a1aa-4194-b861-cfe08f848ab3/0000%22 (280Kb PDF)

Edited PDF: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19016 (PDF 200Kb)

[NutLoose]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBM-Legend
Remember the RAN has gone from one flattop to none and now two units.
Actually, from none (pre-February 1949), to one (Sydney February 1949 - December 1952), to two (Sydney & Vengeance December 1952 - October 1955 & Sydney & Melbourne October 1955 - May 1958), to one* (Melbourne May 1958 - June 1982), to none (June 1982>).



* Sydney was Fast Troop Transport/LPH until November 1973.

In all fairness they would have had one to replace Melbourne, that would or could have been in service today, but the Falklands war scuppered those plans.

The 1981 Defence White Paper and its planned reduction in the size of the carrier fleet saw Invincible marked as surplus to requirements, and the ship was offered for sale to the Royal Australian Navy in July 1981 as a replacement for the ageing aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne.[16] The class had previously been considered and discarded as a potential replacement for the Australian ship, but the low GB£175 million (A$285 million) offer price and the already-constructed state of the vessel prompted the Australian government to announce in February 1982 their intention to accept the British offer.[17] In Australian service, the ship would have been named HMAS Australia, and would operate as a helicopter carrier until a later decision on the acquisition of Sea Harriers was made.[18] Invincible's service during the Falklands War showed that the White Paper's suggested reductions were flawed and both nations withdrew from the deal in July 1982.[17]



Invincible-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible-class_aircraft_carrier)

[4mastacker]

Invincible's service during the Falklands War showed that the White Paper's suggested reductions were flawed and both nations withdrew from the deal in July 1982

Once again, it showed it takes an actual war to make the bean-counters accept that they are invariably wrong/foolish/unwise/know SFA about cutting back on defence.

[SpazSinbad]

Long article best read at source particularly for 'who will fly them potential Oz F-35Bs from Oz LHDs':

Thoughts on the LHD and a fixed wing capability
30 May 2014 Commander David Hobbs, MBE, RN (Rtd)
"TO THE the logical mind, the most surprising element of the 2007 decision to build two Canberra class LHDs was the acceptance by the Australian Government of advice from a lobby group that fighter aircraft based in Australia, with their limited radius of action and fixed supply chains, could provide support for these ships and their ‘all-arms’ battle groups wherever they might be deployed.

The Government had already stated its intention to procure the land-based F-35A Lightning II joint strike fighter but showed no interest in the STOVL F-35B variant (pictured) being developed specifically for amphibious operations with the US Marine Corps. Protagonists of the limited ability of ‘land-locked’ air forces to project power pointed to the availability of air-to-air refuelling to extend the range of fighters but there has, as yet, been no break-through that allows them to be re-armed in flight, and crew fatigue on long sorties must be a significant factor that degrades performance.
In 2008 the Sea Power Centre studied the relative value of shore and sea-borne aircraft and noted the observed historical fact that terminal air bases associated with distant crises are seldom secured beforehand and usually lack the capability to provide immediate support at the level of operations needed for crisis response. The same document notes, on the other hand, that embarked aircraft are fully mobile, operational to their maximum level of performance on arrival in the crisis area and largely secure from ground-based interruptions and asymmetric attacks....

...The best example of rapid and effective reaction to an unexpected crisis is the Falklands conflict of 1982. Possession of the two flat-tops, Hermes and Invincible, allowed the Royal Navy to deploy a task force with naval Sea Harriers and helicopters that were able to fight on, under and over the sea surface. RAF Harriers were subsequently able to join Hermes’ air group but it needs to be pointed out that the ship’s highly skilled aircraft handlers were able to cope with their lack of experience and naval pilots were able to teach them how to operate in a maritime environment. In other words the RAF squadron was not in its primary environment and a force that relied on it for both offence and defence would have been weaker and less effective without the naval professionals who specialised in embarked flying.

A ship that was not as worked up and specialised could not have coped with the new-comers’ inexperience and the example of Illustrious in 2007 is interesting . With no Harrier squadron of her own she embarked 16 AV-8Bs of USMC squadron VMA-542 which flew 152 sorties in twelve hours. In contrast an RAF Harrier squadron embarked in Ark Royal in similar circumstances in 2010 had to carry out several days deck landing training before being considered operational and, in the ensuing exercise, flew less sorties in five days than the USMC had flown in Illustrious in two. Unlike the Marines the RAF were not able to fly at night because of their lack of carrier experience. A land-based unit that undertakes random embarkations as a secondary function will never demonstrate full operational proficiency.

Future conflict in the Pacific region may well rely on control of the sea and that control may not be possible for navies that lack effective aircraft able to operate as an integral part of a triphibious task force. An increasing number of navies have carriers and LHD-type ‘flat-tops’ and Prime Minister Tony Abbot’s May 2014 instruction to planners working on the next Defence White Paper that they are to examine the possibility of putting a squadron of 12 F-35B Lightning II joint strike fighters onto the LHDs to “ensure that Australia maintains a sustainable, versatile and highly capable defence force” shows a ray of hope that the full potential of these ships might be realised. Fortunately their design originated from the Spanish Juan Carlos 1 which was intended to operate STOVL fighters as well as helicopters and even retains the ‘ski-jump’ (it cost less to leave it in place than to redesign the bow to remove it) but significant modifications would be needed to embark F-35Bs on a regular basis. These would include the fitting out of air weapons magazines and handling systems together with the autonomous logistic information system, ALIS, which is at the heart of F-35 operation and maintenance and other arrangements. Aircraft handlers would need training in the operation of both fixed and rotary wing aircraft on deck and sortie generation would require the installation of briefing and flight planning facilities, simulators for pilots to ‘pre-fly’ missions and maintain training standards...."
Thoughts on the LHD and a fixed wing capability | Australian Naval Institute (http://navalinstitute.com.au/thoughts-on-the-lhd-and-a-fixed-wing-capability/)

[500N]

and crew fatigue on long sorties must be a significant factor that degrades performance.


How come on a few occasions - Falklands, Libya - pilots can fly very long range missions - but they now say it is a problem ?

[SpazSinbad]

Bomber pilots OR Fighter Pilots? Reports suggest some pilots in the recent past have been on prescribed amphetamines (and have made mistakes due to the effects of these drugs perhaps). But anyway here goes an oldie but a goldie for the RAAF Crab on LHD thingo.

A SELF RELIANT DEFENCE FORCE Submitted to the [Australian] Defence [Force] White Paper Team
28 July 2008 John Bird
"Paul Dibb (The Dibb Report June 1986) emphasised that as far as is possible, we should ensure that Australia's equipment purchases are 'Force Multipliers' by which he meant that as far as possible, defence equipment should serve, in addition to its primary purpose, to support other areas of defence and so maximise its utility. We are presently on the brink of acquiring a number of equipment items that could form the basis of the best 'force multiplier' that the ADF has ever possessed, but sadly it would appear that government is unlikely to see the need to properly equip two of the platforms presently in the pipeline....

...Objections have been raised in various quarters to the proposal to acquire a fixed wing integral air capability and it would be worthwhile identifying some of these and challenging them.

*Navy will be fully committed in handling all the equipment currently owned and in the pipeline, given the constraints of personnel available.
The proposal does not consider an increase in equipment for Navy. Air Force would bring its aircraft, spares, maintenance equipment and personnel aboard Navy platforms and if one has to consider detail, Air Force could contribute to victualling and any other incidental costs for which it would be responsible should the aircraft be in service elsewhere....

...*RAAF opposition has long been a barrier to the acquisition of a shipborne (integral) air capability. Having long ago lost its control of rotary wing flying, it wishes to retain control of fixed wing aircraft, no matter where they are operated.

This proposal supports that aim and supports the one service control of the F35 and all its support facilities. It requires only that the aircraft is made available to the navy when required, to provide the support with which the air force has long been tasked. The essential difference this time is that would be a credible, an achievable support.

There is still an urgent need to develop a defence force that is, to the extent that is economically feasible, self reliant, and a fleet without integral fixed wing air support cannot, in this day and age be considered to be self reliant. The force requires to be able to respond to situations which may develop in and around our island home and in our neighbourhood, embracing at least New Zealand and our island dependencies. We must also be able to a reasonable extent, to protect our sea lines of communication, the loss of which would deny the nation the ability to resist an aggressor for more than a very limited period of time, given the crippling effects on our economy that would be suffered. Our 'Neighbourhood' should additionally encompass Papua New Guinea and our neighbour allies in the island chains to our north and in near Southeast Asia. A self reliant fleet is an essential element of any force charged with these tasks...."

http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/2009/submissions/01_Strategy_International/Bird_John.pdf (0.27Mb)

[TBM-Legend]

Cross-decking with USMC F-35B's given our relationship with them now is a plus for these ships and therefore the ability to carry our own jets is a positive for all of the ADF and our coalition partners.

HMAS Melbourne, as small as she was, was able to perform numerous fleet roles quite well. In the end old age [Cat issues etc] and "rust" caught up with her when defence spending was heading south. HMS Invincible was informally offered to Australia in late 1980 as a number of us were warned out to possibly go to the UK for training when a "deal" was done. Obviously other events overtook this...

[dat581]

Thinking of coming out of retirement if 805 Squadron stands up again Spaz?:E

[SpazSinbad]

Yeah - now I know why the OzGubmnt plans to up the retirement age from 65. I'll have to step up in the weight class though. Augmented eyesight probably works a treat with the HMDS III. Always dreamt of going flying in me jammies and slippers - and home before teatime - no G - BVR baby - no tears. :}

[SpazSinbad]

Some more AM Browne - Dr. Jensen argybargy from Fri 6th June 2014 Senate Committee Hearing on F-35 (in part). 10 pages from the main PDF at Guvmnt website:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commjnt/0b6ee58c-c085-45b2-b846-270356b353dc/toc_pdf/Joint%20Standing%20Committee%20on%20Foreign%20Affairs,%20Def ence%20and%20Trade_2014_06_06_2560.pdf;fileType=application% 2Fpdf#search=%22committees/commjnt/0b6ee58c-c085-45b2-b846-270356b353dc/0000%22 (0.7Mb)

F-35 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade_2014_06_06_2560.pdf

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19060 (10 pages 0.3Mb PDF)

[SpazSinbad]

LHD and STOVL—An engineer’s view 20 Jun 2014 Steve George (http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/author/steve-george/)
"Steve George was an air engineer officer in the Royal Navy for 28 years, and served in HMS Invincible during the 1982 Falklands operation. During his career, he was closely involved with the Sea Harrier, and also with joint RN/RAF Harrier operations. Retiring from the RN as a Commander, he joined the JSF programme to work on F-35B ship suitability. He is now an engineering consultant."
LHD and STOVL?An engineer?s view | The Strategist (http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/lhd-and-stovl-an-engineers-view/)

[snorker]

Steve George, eh? A clever chap that one. His article constitutes the total sum of intelligent analysis of what the Aussies need to think about, while debunking the astounding ignorance and arrogance of academics who've already enlightened us with their garbage. A great article.

[SpazSinbad]

These pages are the LHD & F-35B & Harrier excerpts from 22 June 2014 edition of ‘A Pictorial History of Royal Australian Navy Fleet Air Arm Skyhawk A-4G & all other FAA Aircraft...’; + ‘How to Deck Land VL & SRVL style’ with Harrier and F-35B examples.

FOLDER: '__LHD & F-35B Info VL + Harrier':
URL: https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=CBCD63D6340707E6&id=CBCD63D6340707E6!298

File Name: LHDs & F-35Bs + Harriers Info ONLY 22 June 2014 Excerpts.PDF (270Mb)

URL: http://1drv.ms/1ioph3s

RIGHT MOUSE CLICK ON THE ICON or whatever file name seen as above and DOWNLOAD this file.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/ComparoLHA-LHD-CVSscaleDeckFORUMlow.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/ComparoLHA-LHD-CVSscaleDeckFORUMlow.gif.html)

[GreenKnight121]

Primera toma de un MV-22 Osprey a bordo del buque ?Juan Carlos I? - Noticias de la Armada - Armada Española - Ministerio de Defensa - Gobierno de España (http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/conocenos_noticias/prefLang_es/00_noticias--2014--06--NT-116-OSPREY-EN-JCI_es?_selectedNodeID=1754123&_pageAction=selectItem)

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/conocenos_noticias/prefLang_es/00_noticias--2014--06--NT-116-OSPREY-EN-JCI_es%3F_selectedNodeID%3D1754123%26_pageAction%3DselectIte m&prev=/search%3Fq%3DMV-22%2BJuan%2BCarlos%2BI%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DqDz%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26channel%3Dsb

USMC MV-22 Ospreys aboard Juan Carlos I - with photos.


Looking good for USMC-RAN cross-deck operations.

[OTR1]

There's a long, straight-bat introduction and overview of the news with tech and conceptual detail of all this in the current issue of Aust Aviation magazine.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc159/crycookie/pprune1_zpsda7e8b96.jpg (http://s217.photobucket.com/user/crycookie/media/pprune1_zpsda7e8b96.jpg.html)

Not a bad article, not bad at all!

[SpazSinbad]

Those inclined with iPads can go here:

https://itunes.apple.com/wa/app/australian-aviation-magazine/id490008686?ls=1&mt=8

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/AustAviationMagnJuly2014coverOzF-35BsLHDsONLY.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/AustAviationMagnJuly2014coverOzF-35BsLHDsONLY.gif.html)

[BBadanov]

haha L. You think it will happen, and get you a job back on 805 ?

[SpazSinbad]

Back in the 1970s it was VF-805 and at age 65+ what do you think.

[BBadanov]

I was just down at my local bar and it is cold here, so wore my flying jacket. Good call, kept me warm, and it's the late US nomex green style before everyone went leather!

But I would not be seen dead in a red-and-white check one !!

[SpazSinbad]

What are you talking about? Who has a red/white chequered flying jacket?

The closest I came to be LURID was wearing the standard shiny green jacket inside out to show the orange lining. Talk about LAFF! And the smell was horrendous.

[SpazSinbad]

VF-805 Woven Cotton Badge Patch as worn on Flying Jacket along with the A-4 Skyhawk Patch plus a leather name tag with wings - embossed 'gold'.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/VF805badgeWovenSmallBLK.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/VF805badgeWovenSmallBLK.gif.html)
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/A-4scooterProBadgeForum.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/A-4scooterProBadgeForum.gif.html)

[dat581]

So what would you prefer on your shiny new F-35 Spaz? Light gull gray with white under sides or the darker all over camo? I'm sure we could find a spot to store your slippers.

[SpazSinbad]

I want a sheepskin seat cover just like the Kiwis had for the KAHUs. I want the invisible paint job.

[SpazSinbad]

2015 Defence White Paper Submission
PROXIMITY MEANS CAPABILITY Operating F-35Bs from the Canberra-class LHDs, Oct 2014 David Baddams
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The submission argues that acquisition and operation of the F-35B aircraft from the Canberra-class Land Helicopter Docks (LHD) is affordable, feasible and desirable. Embarked air power would give the Government of Australia (GoA) and the Australian Defence Force (ADF) a significant and necessary increase in decisive air power to support deployed ADF forces and assist the prosecution of foreign policy objectives.

The submission describes the strategic and military considerations surrounding embarked air power. It addresses the technical and organisational issues involved and outlines a scenario where embarked air power would have a decisive impact in ADF operations.

Finally, it provides conclusions and recommendations for consideration by the Defence Review....

...The Author
David Baddams, 55, was a fighter pilot in the Royal Australian Navy from 1978 to 1984, and then the Royal Navy from 1984 to 1999. In the latter he commanded 800 Naval Air Squadron on multiple operational deployments, including strike fighter operations over Iraq from HMS Invincible in the North Arabian Gulf, and over Kosovo. In 2000 and 2001 he was the Hawk Production Flight Air Test Pilot for most of the RAAF's 33 Hawk lead-in fighter trainers. Since then he has been sales director for Britten-Norman, and in 2013 founded his own aviation support company, Snow Goose International. For SGI client BAE Systems he planned and piloted air support for Nuship Canberra in Port Phillip Bay during her final contractor's sea trials in August 2014. David was appointed MBE in 1998 for Leadership in Air Operations. He lives in Tamworth, New South Wales."
http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/docs/082-Baddams.pdf (158Kb)

[SpazSinbad]

Dave Baddams Gets a Guernsey on SLDinfo:


Australia and F-35Bs: Examining an Option for the Australian Defense Force 08 Nov 2014
"...In an input to the Defence White Paper process, David Baddams has had his paper on F-35Bs published on the Australian Ministry of Defence website...."
Australia and F-35Bs: Examining an Option for the Australian Defense Force | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/australia-and-f-35bs-examining-an-option-for-the-australian-defense-force/)

[dat581]

You just want to see an F-35 in a rap around scheme of Aircraft Grey and Light Admiralty Grey Spaz.

[SpazSinbad]

Jump jets for the ADF?
17 Nov 2014 Richard Brabin-Smith, Benjamin Schreer | Australian Strategic Policy Institute
"This report argues that the costs of Australia acquiring F-35B Joint Strike Fighter short take-off, vertical landing aircraft outweigh the potential benefits.

Overview
Is there a case for Australia to acquire F-35B Joint Strike Fighter short take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft to operate from the two new Canberra-class landing helicopter docks (LHDs)? The government has directed that this question be addressed in the development of the 2015 Defence White Paper.

This report is an independent assessment of the costs and potential benefits of such an acquisition. Reintroducing organic naval air power into the ADF would be a big strategic decision, and very complex and expensive, so it’s important to have a clear view of the circumstances in which it might be beneficial enough to be worth pursuing. And it’s important to be aware not only of the direct costs but also of the potential risks and opportunity costs. Overall, this report concludes that the benefits would be marginal at best, wouldn’t be commensurate with the costs and other consequences for the ADF, and would potentially divert funding and attention from more valuable force."
https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/strategic-insights-78-jump-jets-for-the-adf/SI78_jump_jets.pdf (200Kb)

Jump jets for the ADF? | Australian Policy Online (http://apo.org.au/research/jump-jets-adf)

[SpazSinbad]

Another weigh in on the Bs on LHDs from a knowledgeable source. It is good to see some claims other than 'it can't be done' for XYZ reasons. The White Paper may reveal more about the 'ease of fitting Bs on LHDs'. I can happily accept that any special RAN Fixed Wing is dead with some salt water DNA injection into the crabs via Willytown exchanges. :-) It is sad to know that STOVL experienced former A4G personnel are not employed to help out with the White Paper (I'm not one of those of course). Perhaps that can be remedied easily. Binny knows about A4Gs.

F-35 strike fighters for the Canberra-class? 24 Nov 2014 David Baddams
"...Minor refits indeed. The never-ending claim that the Canberras are not F-35 capable is the bloviating of spectacularly ill-informed mugwumps. The Canberras are delivered with the same hardened fast-jet deck and underpinnings as the Spanish navy’s lead ship, and all essential internal aviation spaces for fast jets have been retained. All of them. This was intentional and a specific factor in the acquisition process. The much-maligned aviation fuel bunkers and weapons stowage spaces have near-identical capacity to the enormous ones in the Spanish ship. Senior personnel have been poorly briefed if they state otherwise.

The fast jet and helo aviation capabilities of the French Mistral and Italian Cavour class were closely examined at the time, and the Spanish design came up trumps in all respects. Right now, the known requirements at refit for F-35Bs are a precision landing light called a HIHAT – it looks like a long green crucifix and is attached the middle mast – some sensor enhancements and Thermion coating on the flight deck. Some existing kit might need to be moved from A to B for electro-magnetic reasons. The glide slope kit, known as GLIS, is already fitted to the Canberras. This is the stuff of minor refit, and no more.

Refit and F-35Bs would deliver a motza more capability. More choices. There is no “niche capability” about six or eight embarked F-35Bs, where sensor fusion and data networking go merrily berserk when four are in the same airspace. That picture of threat and strike solution available to both pilots, controllers and commanders will offer startlingly long reach that any enemy is highly unlikely to penetrate without huge loss. He who sees first and shoots first wins. The days of close-up dogfighting or chasing missiles are long over, and a bad guy sneaking through a “niche” 4-ship of ADF F-35Bs protecting an LHD force would face being seen and shot at before he knew he or his ammunition was a target.

It is no good for pontificating PhDs of think-tankery to praise and extol emerging threats and the peril they pose to the LHDs and then dismiss the essential counterpunch as a tiny and extravagant toy. Further, their doctoral eminences need to learn that of 100 ADF F-35s only 60 or so will ever be in line service. The rest will be in attrition reserve, maintenance, repair or required for development work. The mooted 28 F-35Bs would easily provide three for attrition reserve, three in deep maintenance, one hangar queen, two flights of six or eight for the Canberras and a flight for conversion, training and reinforcement.

There is nothing “niche” in the relative or actual of these numbers. They are the sorts of numbers that current and probable F-35B operators use. So long as the powers-that-be are committed to supporting this through the F-35B’s life-of-type then the ADF can do this in a doddle...."F-35 strike fighters for the Canberra-class? | Australian Naval Institute (http://navalinstitute.com.au/f-35-strike-fighters-from-the-canberra-class/)