Will Australia Ever Follow other Naval Fleets and Carry F-35s to Sea?

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 675

  • @jamesr8473
    @jamesr8473 2 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    They'd need an upgraded deck to support F-35s but having that capability would change them from targets to an actual threat to enemy ships over 1,000km away. Consideration should be given to using drones as an alternative.

    • @danieltynan5301
      @danieltynan5301 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      The loyal wingman would probably make it off the deck with longer wing's if required....

  • @KeepItSimpleSailor
    @KeepItSimpleSailor 2 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    Australia needs to increase capabilities on all fronts - period. Part of the problem is Defence is not a great manager of money for infrastructure nor equipment - they really need to do much better in acquisitions.

    • @blackhornetf
      @blackhornetf 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Plus Putting 40% of your fighter jets on a small floating runway closer to your opponents navy just puts them in harms way of been taken out with 1 missile or a torpedo when defending your country. If 1 missile manages to hit a RAAF air base its not as big of a deal because there huge and you wont lose all of your fighter jets , pilots , critical support staff and runways in 1 bang.

  • @nevillemignot1681
    @nevillemignot1681 2 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    A defense white paper about the purchase and use of the class does say that the two ships can have their prime use 'Altered' to fit 'Circumstances of the Time'. I would think that this means they can carry and service Jump Jets or Short Take Off type jets sometime in the future if required

    • @OFFTRACKPLACES
      @OFFTRACKPLACES  2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Its a good point Neville, the word 'Altered' is certainly ambiguous enough for a whole host of potential changes 👍

    • @richardcostello360
      @richardcostello360 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      They're pretty expensive as is......to add the essential strengthening and fireproofing wouldn't be worth it

  • @rh3749
    @rh3749 2 ปีที่แล้ว +47

    For pete's sake, what is the point of the ski launch ramp except to launch STOVL aircraft like the F35Bs? Retrofitting the flight deck with coating to handle F35Bs is not a large investment, maybe $50 million. Well worth the cost in return for turning the Canberra class into power projectors instead of sitting ducks. The UK QE class carriers with ski launch ramps already show how it's done, as does the Italian light carrier Cavour, which all operate F35Bs already from ski jumps. There's no excuse for delay with the China threat looming.

    • @pwillis1589
      @pwillis1589 2 ปีที่แล้ว +15

      Keeping the ski jump was a cost saving measure as a design modification would have cost more. The Adelaide and Canberra are unable to accommodate fixed wing aircraft for a variety of reasons.

    • @ausaskar
      @ausaskar 2 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      They bought the hull the same as the Spanish one to avoid the usual cost and technical blowouts that almost always occur when the ADF asks for a bespoke custom design.

    • @WALTERBROADDUS
      @WALTERBROADDUS 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      They need a submarine program a lot more than they need more Fighters.

    • @tams805
      @tams805 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@WALTERBROADDUS True, but that's pretty much locked in.

    • @direpants4667
      @direpants4667 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      We're cheapskates in Australia, taking it off was unacceptably expensive to some public servant bean counter, despite the fact the same bean counters effectively neutered this ships capability to be anything other than a floating block of flats

  • @meejinhuang
    @meejinhuang 2 ปีที่แล้ว +69

    Yes, they should operate the F35B on small carriers to project power into the Pacific.

    • @Spacegoat92
      @Spacegoat92 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      What power? We've got nothing. We're out numbered and outgunned. If China decides to invade, they'll be standing in Canberra before America and Britain realize what's going on.

    • @meejinhuang
      @meejinhuang 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@Spacegoat92 Do you realize that China doesn't even have a proper marine invasion corp. Taiwan still has many islands 2 kms off of China's coast.

    • @Spacegoat92
      @Spacegoat92 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@meejinhuang Who's to say they're not already here?

    • @davidsargent9359
      @davidsargent9359 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      The HEAT can’t be taken by the deck.
      It’s immense! A furnace!
      Hence , it can’t.

    • @gryph01
      @gryph01 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      They would have to add screens to protect the ship. ASW, AAD, subs are needed to protect the "carrier". That reduces the number of ships free to conduct other operations.

  • @aaronspackman763
    @aaronspackman763 2 ปีที่แล้ว +12

    My belief is that in Australia we do require a dedicated aircraft carrier as part of a bi-lateral option as I see it our armed service is not big enough to operate a vessel that size but if the RN and RAN operate a carrier together as 3 carriers is probably one too many for the UK to operate by itself. They could deploy the joint carrier between Australia and United Kingdom to project a larger sphere of strength and more stability into the Pacific and South China Sea

    • @WALTERBROADDUS
      @WALTERBROADDUS 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      They can't afford a carrier program and a submarine program.

    • @carisi2k11
      @carisi2k11 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

      No we don't. When we had two of them we didn't need them. HMAS Sydney 3 was converted into a glorified troop transport just like the current LHD's and Melbourne well it had 2 collisions and never did anything but escort HMAS Sydney as it couldn't stay on station for any period of time. The F111 in those days and the F35A along with the KC30A, E7 and P8 make them null and void for us these days.

  • @Leon1Aust
    @Leon1Aust ปีที่แล้ว +6

    I would like to see the Canberra class have a few VTOVL AWAC aircraft - maybe a converted Osprey or the British Crowsnest radar helicopter mod or even fitted to future drones. That could give the Hobart or Hunter class ships an (OTHT) over the horizon targeting capability against anti ship cruise missiles. They would be network guiding the SM2 SM6 missiles over the horizon.

  • @thomasb5600
    @thomasb5600 2 ปีที่แล้ว +19

    Australia could 1 Squadron 24 F35B based on land and use LHD when needed. We where going to have 100 F35 at one point now I believe we are going 1 squadron short of that.
    The 2 LHD could have room for a few F35B we just don’t know as no one has actual looked at what would be needed or cost. I have heard it could be a simple as special paint on the deck to a complete overhaul of the main structure. Those that are opposed to such an idea can’t point to a structural difference between any of the Juan Carlos variants, they talk of lift not being strong enough, not big enough aviation fuel storage, reduce space of the vehicle storage decks and so on but with no actual studies.
    Australia does not need a full squadron of F35B on a single carrier full time, usefulness is to limited. Australia needs to be flexible. A LHD ability to carry 0 to 12(8) F35B is what should be looking at. The ability to be fitted to provide relief missions like Tonga, fleet escort, ground support or foreign air support roles should be the determining factor in how many F35B need to be carried. We can’t achieve force projection by ourselves but we should be able to either assist or conduct smaller missions. The ability to put and resupply F35B in the Pacific or Indian oceans might be very useful.
    Australia should have a third LHD so we have one available, one training and one routine maintenance.

    • @Lightning_studios437
      @Lightning_studios437 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Hypothetically history has a good video on the F-35B Option as the future for Australian naval aviation, he tries to figure out if it would fit the ADFs mission set and how much it would cost, although it’s hard to calculate as there are no publicly available blueprints of the Canberra class which makes it hard to know if the ships current ammunition stowages would suit fixed wing aviation.

    • @thomasb5600
      @thomasb5600 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@Lightning_studios437 yes, I have seen it. It highlighted to me how many things to do with the military in Australia are traditional thinking.
      Like not having any combat amphious vehicle.

    • @crusher8017
      @crusher8017 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      The main purpose and therfore design philosophy of the Canberra Class was to be able to transport a short Brigade for amphibious assaults. Using them as fixed wing aircraft carriers was not part of the brief. Yes, we should have a dedicated Aircraft Carrier but there are not enough people to man one. Since the mid 2010's, lots of people have been leaving the ADF after the high tempo of Ops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    • @thomasb5600
      @thomasb5600 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@crusher8017 Main purpose in 2000, a uncontested amphibious assault. Yet we still have inadequate landing craft. We are now in a different environment.
      Having a dedicated a single Aircraft Carrier why? What about maintenance or single point of failure. Having 3 LHD capable of to carrying 1 squadron F35B would open the mission capabilities even with allies far more then a single AC with F35B. The LHDs could still carry out their 2000 main role of being uncontested amphibious assault.

    • @crusher8017
      @crusher8017 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@thomasb5600 Mate we are in 2022 now. Sacrificing troop transport capability for a lodgement vs 12 x 35's would take a large amount of internal reconfiguration of the LHD's. They were designed for amphib ops. Hence the need for at least 1 Aircraft Carrier. Besides the cost of the Carrier we would also have to purchase the F-35B's. 2 Carriers would be required so that one is always ready. So where would the money and manpower come from ? As I stated earlier, we have neither the money nor the personell. If you can give me a solution to be able to lodge a short brigade with all of its required supporting arms and logistics and carry a Sqn of F-35's, I am all ears.

  • @kxngmars6527
    @kxngmars6527 2 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    I've been saying we should get aircraft carriers and upgrade and modify our fleets to suit for a bit now. But I'm thinking at this point, going all in would just be better and make more sense. We're literally surrounded by water. Having a good air defense operating from your shores with a basic A2/D2 defense strategy these days is a bare minimum. Although this obviously means changing the ADF. It would no longer be classified as a Defense force and would turn into the Australian Military. However, considering us and our geographical closest ally (NZ) I think it's something that would make a huge difference. As an Australian, although we're aligned with the US so heavily, I'd be more comfortable knowing we can hold our own if our supply lines get cut, or whatever situation may arise. This also frees up the US to focus their efforts elsewhere that's needed, again beneficial for both countries and region stability for the most part. We get threatened to get nuked as it is by China anyway even holding a nonproliferation status so there's no reason to hold ourselves back at this point in my eyes. By 2030 (maybe 2040) they've committed to increasing troop levels quite substantially. Most of this is logistics and support roles though. However I imagine that's the first smart step in actually being able increasing your military without sacrificing combat effectiveness. Creating the nuclear framework with the UN as we're currently doing to be able to procure nuclear reactors and nuclear powered naval crafts means the framework could potentially be extended to other things like aircraft carriers in the future. The cost and yearly maintenance costs for the new Ford class carriers are very doable for Australia. The only thing is, carriers require a massive learning curve. The benefit there is having the US already having so much experience and know how, I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to setup and integrated training program to be able to rotate Australians on and off to be able to get the training and operations, and intricacies down to even things like quarantine etc.
    PLUS, research should be done with AUKUS to figure out how, or if it's necessary to design a new boat to take as many of these drones that can pair up with the F-35s as possible such as the Ghost Bat, and the rest of the Lone Wingman programs. Increasing the size of a fleet but also multiplying it's power and force projection capabilities substantially. Having the US, Australia and the UK integrate their fleets, drone capabilities and cohesion to an entirely new level on the water as well as being able to project an even more unified and capable air force would solidify stability in the regions, and balance the load between countries and their capabilities much better. I do think this should involve massive expansions to sub and ship yards in Australia that can accommodate as many allied vessels as possible would be massively beneficial as well. Look at Pine Gap, it provides almost all of the intelligence for the entirety of Russia and China and disseminates, and sends that out to the Five Eyes partners.
    That's my take anyway. Interesting to see this discussion coming up more often though. Currently I think Australias military is severely under prepared, and needs some serious attention and strengthening. I don't think we can hold off an attack ourselves if it came down to it. Not a chance. We have almost the same amount of land as the US, only 25m people and like 75 tanks, 200 combat fighters (maybe) and some fleets and submarines that would easily be outmatched, and outgunned. Shit we literally couldn't afford to give Ukraine more than 6 M777s, cause we honestly just don't have that much. Plus our supply lines and stockpiles are pathetic last I heard. There's currently a military review that's been called but I'm assuming when the report comes out, it's not going to be saying anything good other than our soldiers are trained quite well. But you look at things like the HiFire program, or the JORN radar. Our geographic location, having the entire continent to ourselves helps too. We have a lot of potential. If we taxed resource extraction companies more in this country, we could pay for all of this in like 2 years. Either way, I feel like as an Australian, I think it's time we start to see some big changes to adapt to these threats like China and Russia. Especially considering we're so isolated from a lot of our closest allies.

    • @carisi2k11
      @carisi2k11 ปีที่แล้ว

      We don't have and never will have the ability to operate aircraft carriers especially the nuclear type. The ADF will not be able to expand because the armed forces isn't a popular destination for Australians these days. I do agree that taxing the resources going out is a good idea.

  • @billyeyeball7725
    @billyeyeball7725 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Dont know much about the details etc, but it is so good being able to walk down to the neighbourhood of wooloomooloo in Sydney and just look at the ships such as this one.
    Cheers for the vid .

  • @richardthomson4693
    @richardthomson4693 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Firstly V-22 have operated from them for many years, RIMPAC was the first time they stored them below deck, previously they just did flight ops from them. Ospreys have been landing on canberra class for at least the last 6 years

    • @OFFTRACKPLACES
      @OFFTRACKPLACES  2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Cheers Richard, appreciate the clarification, yes, your correct of course, first CV-22 landed in 2016, During RIMPAC 22 Canberra amphibious assault ship embarked US Marine Corps (USMC) MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft in an at-sea phase of a naval exercise for the first time! Ive updated my video description to correct my error, thanks again 👍

    • @richardthomson4693
      @richardthomson4693 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@OFFTRACKPLACES No problem. I also got a captains tour of Canberra during a port call on its first deployment. I was with the media and it was done by the XO, they asked the question about F-35's, he said that the canberra had modifications that would need to be reversed, he said they converted some of the avgas tanks to diesel, some ammunition elevators had been removed. Deck would need to be hardened, they did already have plans to upgrade the a thermal protection on the decks because the V-22's also fire the jetblast straight down from the a jet turbines
      There was also a question about the ramp, apparently removal of the ramp would have been an 18 delay on building and cost a couple of hundred million to redesign and recertify the ship

    • @OFFTRACKPLACES
      @OFFTRACKPLACES  2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@richardthomson4693 I personaly would love to tour one of these ships! I would guess, if one of the canberra class was to be converted to operate F-35B, it would likely be an extensive 18 month modernisation. Reinstalling the ammo elevators and even providing storage for the vast range of F-35 munitions and extra jet fuel would likely require changes to layout and the introduction of a more advance fire protection system, but it can be done...Thanks again Richard for your comments.

  • @hgf334
    @hgf334 2 ปีที่แล้ว +30

    Australia must build more destroyers first. Having only three destroyers available and old outdated frigates (the new hunter class frigates are many years away) and considering the changing geopolitical environment, I think Australia would be better served if it built several of it's own aircraft carriers.

    • @carisi2k11
      @carisi2k11 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Agreed that we need to get the Hunters built ASAP and double the amount as well. We really have no need at all for an Aircraft carrier which was shown when we had the Sydney and Melbourne as carriers and they never really did that mission. Sydney became a troop carrier much like the current Canberra and Adelaide and Melbourne barely did any sorties off her deck.

    • @hgf334
      @hgf334 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@carisi2k11 I hear ya, however HMAS Melbourne (II) was decommisssioned in 1982. A lot has changed in the world since then. If a real threat were to emerge in the next few years, Australia would have to rely on it's F-35's which are limited in range without air refueling. An aircraft carrier makes sense as well as the purchase of the relevant F-35's to go with them. A robust medium and long range ballistic and hypersonic missile industry is also urgently needed.

    • @nedkelly9688
      @nedkelly9688 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@hgf334 Hypersonics have been going on for decades.. you might want to research HIFIRE and HIFIRE 4 was a sucessful Glide vehicle in 2017..
      Ray Stalker is a Aussie and Australia has 7 of his wind tunnels capable of Mach 30 and a Australian company involved in all Hifire tests is bringing out a Hypersonic scramjet drone next year.
      Australia has the worlds first 3d printed scramjet and fastest at Mach 12..
      Australia has a Blanket ban on discussing our Hypersonic program.
      By searching everything on this comapany pretty sure we are way further then anyone thinks.
      Australian companies are starting to produce special materials for Hypersonic vehicles and also ramp up rocket fuel production in Australia also..
      Why Aukus deal made a big statement from Scomo on Hypersonics as part of it because we are a world leader in this field.

    • @nedkelly9688
      @nedkelly9688 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@hgf334 Was talking to a American on a channel about F35 and when told him of This scramjet drone he posted a link to a defence site and had a part on in the F35 avionics it has Hypersonic capabilities and he said he worked on it and wondered why this was put in.
      Australian Defence has been providing funds for this company and all our Hypersonics programs.

    • @nedkelly9688
      @nedkelly9688 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@hgf334 Below is some more info. but this reporter is slow since USA has a scramjet working since was part of HIFIRE, but theirs is slower it seems.
      Now what gets me is this is a commercial sytem for public sale, so why does it say Publicly discloseable range of 500km. this engine was used in several HIFIRE tests.. so has it gone further in those.
      And why build a drone if havn't done a simple rocket and missile tests yet.
      another story saids he has been flying it like a RC plane across Woomera for years.
      Australia gives US hypersonics a much-needed boost
      Australian firm Hypersonix says it can 3-D print a hypersonic engine in a mere three weeks
      Concept art of the DART AE UAV. Photo: University of Southern Queensland
      As the US struggles to field its own hypersonic weapons, Hypersonix, a small Australian civilian company, might provide the much-needed hypersonic engine technology to help the US to develop the weapons.
      The Hypersonix scramjet engine was introduced to senior US officials last month and appears to have several advantages over more complex US systems. Notably, the company claims it can 3D-print a hypersonic engine in three weeks.
      Hypersonix’s engine can be 3D-printed using special alloys characterized by resistance to corrosion, oxidation, high pressure and high temperature. In addition, more exotic coatings are planned to be used for exposed hypersonic vehicle flight control surfaces, which endure extreme temperatures during hypersonic flight.
      Last month Hypersonix, together with the University of Southern Queensland, LSM Advanced Composites and Romar Engineering, was awarded a A$2.9 million (US$2.2 million) grant from the Australian government to develop the DART CMP airframe, a reusable hypersonic UAV that can travel up to speeds of Mach 12, powered by the SPARTAN hydrogen engine.
      The project aims to produce a complete UAV airframe including composite aeroshell and aerodynamic control surfaces, flight avionics and a hydrogen fuel system.
      This January, Hypersonix and US-based firm Kratos signed an agreement to launch the DART AE, a multi-mission, hypersonic vehicle powered by a hydrogen-fueled scramjet engine.
      Kratos’ booster system will accelerate the DART AE to Mach 5 for vehicle release. Following ignition of the scramjet, the hypersonic vehicle will fly autonomously along a programmed flight path to a predetermined landing location.
      It is designed to operate between Mach 5 and 12, with a publicly disclosable range of 500 kilometers, using a mechanically simpler hydrogen system for engine thrust, giving it variable speed control and a huge range.
      The Delta-Velos Orbiter which contains the SPARTAN (ScramJet Powered Accelerator for Reusable Technology AdvaNcement) launching a 3rd stage booster. Credit - Hypersonix
      Its scramjet engine takes in atmospheric oxygen, which reduces weight up to 60% compared to rockets. Also, the development of new high-temperature composite materials in the project enables the DART AE to be completely reusable.
      Hypersonix has also finished several hypersonic shock tunnel tests at the University of Southern Queensland and has done extensive modeling on its DART AE hypersonic vehicle, with the first test launch expected next year.
      Hypersonix co-founder Dave Waterhouse said the advantage of this engine design is that it has fixed geometry and employs no moving parts, which are potential points of failure, in contrast to more complex US designs.
      He added that since the engine can be turned on and off in flight, the DART AE can effectively “skip off the atmosphere,” in a manner like stones skipping off water. As a result, the system can cover huge distances using only small amounts of fuel.
      While Hypersonix has claimed its technology is for green access to space as it produces no CO2 emissions, the technology obviously has military applications.
      Hypersonix’s technology has the potential to bolster flagging US hypersonic research efforts, which have been marred by a string of test failures and challenges, such as supply chain constraints, acquisition barriers, budget instability and access to test facilities.
      Other factors that contribute to US difficulties include poor design, fabrication, management and test planning as well as pre-flight testing deficiencies and a lack of rigorous government oversight.
      As a result, the US has yet to field a usable hypersonic weapon, in contrast to its near-peer adversaries China and Russia. Hypersonic weapons have been in service with the Chinese military since 2019, with the DF-17 hypersonic missile being one of the first operational systems fielded.

  • @SNOWDONTRYFAN
    @SNOWDONTRYFAN 2 ปีที่แล้ว +27

    Having those aircraft does give one the advantage of being independent and able to operate outside of the range of your own mainland airbases re: cover , but its the way they are used , more so like the US and probably the UK being a joint carrier force (Aegis) incorporated into something like the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) and Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) allowing the strike group to operate well beyond their own ships sensors and as one can appreciate a massive over the horizon threat !

    • @simpl3simon806
      @simpl3simon806 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      The raff has multiple access to airbases around Indo Pacific and in North America there is no need for them to be stationed on board and aircraft carrier

    • @SOLOcan
      @SOLOcan 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Do we even have enough escorts for these ships to act independently?

    • @Buddfox
      @Buddfox 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Kim me xma. C. C+ + ,,obyl
      . M? Q

  • @aussietaipan8700
    @aussietaipan8700 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Yes, we should have L03 and L04 more dedicated for the F35B, each of these accompanying L01 and L02 as strike missions and stand off air cover for the amphibious forces.

  • @stevenhoman2253
    @stevenhoman2253 2 ปีที่แล้ว +23

    There should be no question about it. The RAN should prepare itself to be in a position to carry fixed wing aircraft in addition to helicopters. They all serve different needs and missions. It would provide for our navy to have the ability to offer both an offensive and defensive force where needed. Something we have been missing for far too long.

    • @SOLOcan
      @SOLOcan 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      We don't have it because it does not fit our geo-political strategy. What goals is it trying to accomplish, and how does refitting these ships align with that.
      The United States wants to use their fleet to force their way into an area (rightly or wrongly) to enact their political goals of maintaining and spreading their hegemony through the direct use of force. The USMC LHSs is only a small (and while arguably more "efficient", ultimately redundant and only possible due to the existence of CVs) part of facilitating this. In other words the US needed to create the USMC in order to have a need for a USMC LHS in the first place
      These ships were built with a diplomatic purpose in mind. To allow Australia to provide assistance to willing nations. We have no overseass colonial holdings we need to defend like the UK and we have no gigantic network of oversea military bases to support an expeditionary force. As it is a willing nation, if fixed wing air support is necessary, Australia can use existing infrastructure or create a makeshift airport.
      If you devote half of these ships to flight operations, you only get half an amphibious landing base. And for the ability to do what?

    • @stevenhoman2253
      @stevenhoman2253 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@SOLOcan I hear what you are saying, however, our geopolitical objectives have changed very rapidly over the recent decades. I would suggest that any future white paper, considering our position, in relation to future threats, in addition to local power projection in the pacific region. Our humanitarian assistance to our neighbours (recently much neglected) must also be addressed. Having a mobile air wing is always advantageous for both peace time and reaction force purposes. A smaller carrier contingent with a diminished aircraft load and mix, in addition to an increase in our troop carrying abilities and aegis type destroyers. Carrying our own weight in the south pacific and Indian oceans alliances, is in line with our responsibilities.

    • @SOLOcan
      @SOLOcan 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@stevenhoman2253your not really answering my question rather just saying all the possibilities we should do.
      Australia has chosen to specialise its assets. Out of the things you’ve posed retrofitting these ships will compromise two of them and increase the requirements for the third.
      The Canberra class ships facilitate humanitarian aid. They were based on Australia’s response to East Timor. They increase troop capacity and benefit the Australian Army as well, rather than just be a Navy asset. Any use of these ships as carriers will increase the need for escorts as well.
      Again why compromise all this?

    • @ronclark9724
      @ronclark9724 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@stevenhoman2253 Nonsense. The LHDs do NOT have the bunkerage for advanced fighter armament for their missiles and bombs. They were built for sealift and amphibious operations, not to be baby aircraft carriers. An Aussie baby aircraft carrier facing a Chinese carrier battle group in the Indian Ocean or Pacific Ocean would lose the battle. If you need more strike fighters, better to build another air base which is unsinkable... China is NOT Argentina! Australia is NOT the USA!

    • @PopulismIsForBottomFeeders
      @PopulismIsForBottomFeeders 10 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@SOLOcan You almost sounded like you had some idea of this subject, right up until you used the word 'hegemony' and then you nose dived into War Thunder 'ekKzPeRt' territory st supersonic speed.
      Also, apparently you're unaware of the concept of force projection that has once again become a capability goal of recent green and white papers since 2015.

  • @andrewg3238
    @andrewg3238 2 ปีที่แล้ว +47

    The vessels are vaguely similar to the Juan Carlos 1 of the Spanish Armada but they do have some differences. They were never intended to carry fixed wing aircraft and were obtained as a response to the aftermath of the 1999 East Timor independence, referendum where Australia had to take a lead role in the subsequent peacekeeping mission that was required. The ADF ended up having to send a brigade (3rd Brigade) plus supporting elements in as part of the multinational force and discovered it did not have the strategic lift to do so nor capability to easily land such a force. Each vessel is designed to carry a battlegroup, supporting elements and their equipment (the 1046 soldiers mentioned).
    To convert to a fixed wing carrier would take away from this primary mission of HADR or stabilisation forces in the case of political or social instability in a country in the Asia Pacific region. At present ADF doctrine does not appear to involve the power projection concept that a carrier is meant to provide.

    • @nicholasjones9348
      @nicholasjones9348 2 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      A little under a year ago the idea of the RAN operating Nuclear Subs was at best laughable due to the cost lead time and logistics. Now we are attempting to procure one of the largest and most capable Nuclear sub capability's in the world which I think shows the RAN and Aus gov are starting to have a strong look at what capability's and force multipliers could be added to the RAN and a dedicated air combat element dedicated to a task group could be seen as a way to extend their reach and force protection closer to china and wared off several aerial threats

    • @trevormoffat4054
      @trevormoffat4054 2 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Your key phrase: “At present”… the strategic environment is rapidly evolving to Australia’s North.

    • @dylanwight5764
      @dylanwight5764 2 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      The obvious solution is also the wrong one. Although I agree with the majority opinion that Australia would do well to possess two more heavy lifters (let's say for argument's sake that finding enough crew for them isn't an issue) these should _not_ be fixed wing aviation platforms. Australia's naval aviation requirements are best served by helicopters, not only because they provide a much more useful anti-submarine platform than fixed wing aircraft, but because they're better at rescue-at-sea and disaster relief missions. As you've alluded to, the RAN's main mission -- providing a maritime defense of Australia -- is best served by political _soft_ power projection. Everybody knows we're a good neighbour and we'll be there when they need our help. Even at the height of tensions with Indonesia, we always stood alongside them during natural disasters and civil emergencies.
      But Australia still has a real need for fixed-wing naval aviation assets in an anti-shipping role. Our old solution is still the best though -- these assets should be land-based. Of course I'm referring to the Pig, the venerable F-111C. Retiring our favourite precision attack aircraft was a huge blow to our defense capabilities. Without such a fast, far and low flying aircraft that hits hard and heavy, we've lost our ability to successfully dissuade an enemy naval group. There is no stronger anti-shipping capability for an island nation with a natural air-sea-gap _killbox_ to our north than strike aircraft operated out of land bases. We have the terrain in our favour. We _had_ the capability once before. It's time we reinvested in it.

    • @jackass123455
      @jackass123455 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      it's also worth noting that australia does not feild a NAVAL air force with our air force being primarily home defence with from nation or forward operating base as their primary method of launch. while these ships are not intended for the service of fixed wing aircraft they can be used as support for fixed wing operations of appropriate aircraft as evidenced.

    • @XxBloggs
      @XxBloggs 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      They’re not “vaguely similar” they are identical.

  • @valenrn8657
    @valenrn8657 2 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    The Canberras have the same physical dimensions as Juan Carlos I, but differ in the design of the island superstructure and the internal layout. Canberra class's 27,500 displacement is too small to match USN's 40,500 tons displacement Wasp-class LHD's dual roles. Canberra class has to drop one role to change into a light/escort aircraft carrier role.

  • @OzinPictures
    @OzinPictures 2 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    You've hit on a great subject here and one I've raised some years ago. My take on this is they absolutely should have been fitted to take them from the start even if it isn't their primary use in peacetime and it wouldn't have been a big stretch to make it possible if it had been done at the start. The deck is the main issue as far as I can see. One of the other problems however is that the powers that be over here didn't consider that the B variant of the F-35 was the one to get and instead went for the A variant. This IMHO was a huge mistake. We should have divided it pretty much down the middle and got half of each. Enough to put on both Adelaide and Canberra if necessary. You only have to look at the specs to see that aside from radar cross section (which admittedly does not work in their favour) they should be as effective as the Invincible Class was for Britain. If we were smart, we would have 2 US carrier battlegroups permanently based over here too. It would be sensible for us and as the US Navy is designed to operate away from home and protect their interests without it coming close to their coasts it would be in their interests to do it too.

    • @DarkShroom
      @DarkShroom 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      i don't think it's quite that simple the f-35b heats up what it lands on, a helicopter doesn't
      we have been doing r and d for the US with the Queen Elizabeth concerning this sort of thing

    • @WALTERBROADDUS
      @WALTERBROADDUS 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      I'm not sure you can afford both another fighter program and build submarines.

    • @WALTERBROADDUS
      @WALTERBROADDUS 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@DarkShroom the deck issue is able to be solved during a refit. That's what the whole Bon hom Richard was doing before she burned.

    • @mbbb9244
      @mbbb9244 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      And how do we defend such a basic ship with such an expensive cargo? We don’t have the sea power to defend them. ALSO what use will 2 ships be really? Attacking a pacific island? China could easily and quickly sink them with a couple of missiles and then we loose all the aircraft.

    • @OzinPictures
      @OzinPictures 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@mbbb9244 The same way all carriers are defended. With the use of escorts with a range of protective capabilities and keeping the carriers as out of range as possible from being an easy target. The idea of a carrier is to put the aircraft in range, not the carrier itself. Of course this is getting harder to do and is not without risk. But there is no totally safe way of doing it. During the Falklands War the British lost a number of ships but the two carriers were kept as protected as possible.

  • @richardcostello360
    @richardcostello360 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    I think people are forgetting that our Navy isn't tiny compared to most developed nations
    We are also designed more for disaster relief and recovery rather than power projection and war fighting, since our part of the world has a ton of cyclones and tsunamis/earthquakes

    • @andrewnewton2246
      @andrewnewton2246 ปีที่แล้ว

      The RAN were vital in the post Cyclone Tracey relief in 1974, when the navy pretty much took control of the entire region.

    • @ancient1946
      @ancient1946 13 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@andrewnewton2246 Acknowledged. However, that was 1/2 century ago. The world HAS changed and with the geopolitics of the current world.............

  • @DrGreenThumbNZL
    @DrGreenThumbNZL 2 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    I wish they would come to NZ and show them off

    • @rednaughtstudios
      @rednaughtstudios 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      It's be cheaper to book a flight to Sydney and catch the train to Circular Quay from the airport. Jump on the ferry to Manly and you'll get front row seat as you sail past Garden Island. 🙂

  • @advanceaustralia3321
    @advanceaustralia3321 2 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    No. Build a pair of dedicated carriers.
    A larger, more powerful RAN is needed.

    • @deepposeidon289
      @deepposeidon289 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      RAN doesn't have the numbers to operate carriers like the USA have it takes 4000 sailors to operate those type of carriers we only have an active 15,000 full-time RAN personnel

    • @styre5249
      @styre5249 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      We have one " Australia " and no-one can sink it, unfortunately we dont have the men or machines to operate a carrier. I wish we had enough for 2 to have an east and western fleet

    • @advanceaustralia3321
      @advanceaustralia3321 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@deepposeidon289
      QE class only need 650 crew.
      Expand the RAN in ships and personnel. There’s plenty of talented young men who would want to serve on a modern supercarrier.

    • @FishandHunt
      @FishandHunt 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@advanceaustralia3321 Maybe some talented young woman also?

    • @advanceaustralia3321
      @advanceaustralia3321 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@FishandHunt
      Probably. But they reduce operational efficiency.
      Part of the issue with recruitment is this pursuit and promotion of women, alphabet people and immigrant minorities in the military.
      Young Australian men see it as a career hindrance and political vanity as opposed to increasing capability of the forces.

  • @floyd8740
    @floyd8740 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    1) They are not the largest ship operated by the RAN.
    2) The only reason they have a ski-jump is because it would have cost more money to have the Spanish.
    3) No, they cannot handle the F35B, because the decks were not built to withstand the vectored thrust.
    4) The F35B is far too expensive and offers no practical benefit to Australia.

  • @bemusedpanda8875
    @bemusedpanda8875 2 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    If Australia wanted the F-35b on its carriers, it should build a dedicated model from scratch. Putting F-35s on the Canberra class would be pointless as it already has dedicated a huge amount of its internal space to landing craft. No refit will be costly and result in a confused mishmash that cannot adequately perform the role of both an amphibious assault ship or a light carrier.

    • @cgray8267
      @cgray8267 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      The Spanish use harriers on there LHD’s as with the US LHD’s. I can tell you first hand they can take fixed wing

    • @oliverblackman1444
      @oliverblackman1444 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@cgray8267 Yes but they are designed to carry fixed wing aircraft Canberra is not doesn’t have the fuel stores or the deck shielding to support fixed wing aviation operations USS America is 20,000 tons heavier and 1.3 times larger gives a lot of room for fixed wing aircraft

    • @cgray8267
      @cgray8267 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@oliverblackman1444 mate I spent since 2013 on the deck , now retired , it’s built exactly the same as Spain’s was, straight out of Williamstown dockyard Melb, NOTHING different. I don’t know where you got the Fuel storage information from and shielding is only needed for conventional launches not vertical, and if required as per Japans LHD I have been on , only requires a slight modifications 👍 I notice a lot of comments about what these ships can and cannot do and nearly every bit is incorrect.

    • @bearcatracing007
      @bearcatracing007 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@cgray8267 what about the 2015 Defence white paper than mentioned all the mods needs to operate the F-35B or is the government wrong?

    • @oliverblackman1444
      @oliverblackman1444 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@cgray8267 2013 eh the ship was Commission in 2014 and it’s completely different to the juan Carlos

  • @Exadius117
    @Exadius117 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Great idea, small problem. Their decks would melt if an F-35 were to take off. To reinforce them would take considerable engineering challenges, time and costs plus time in drydock.

    • @marcofava
      @marcofava 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Well, not necessarily, JS Izumo was modified in months to take and launch F-35's, granted that was only for testing purposes and the full modification to the ship will take upwards of a year, but Izumo requires substantial modifications due to having been designed from the get go as a Helicopter carrier.
      A More apt comparison would be the Italian Cavour which took a year for her full modernisation to operate F-35's to complete

  • @philcole5523
    @philcole5523 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The video you made is very in-depth I'm very happy I watched it keep up the good work and I will Beerus Chrysler of yours from now on thank you for making it

  • @paulroberts3639
    @paulroberts3639 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Knowing the Australian defence forces, we will be trying to figure out how to squeeze F111s onto the two ships, just to save on the cost of new aircraft. And whilst an Abrams might fit in below. They will use the room for a few Bob Semple tanks.

  • @tgsgardenmaintenance4627
    @tgsgardenmaintenance4627 2 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    Though pig ugly, think they were a great acquisition by the Aussies. The addition of half a dozen F-35's to each vessel would expand their capability dramatically! Our own RN could do with something similar for our RM expeditionary force, a couple of Trieste class would be ideal! Respect to my commonwealth brothers way down south! ❤️ 🇬🇧

    • @folksinger2100
      @folksinger2100 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      The Australians have bought F35A''s which are not VTOL that's the F35B which has a habit of crashing due to engine failure.

    • @tams805
      @tams805 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@folksinger2100 'Habit' is grossly misleading.

    • @stevetaylor8298
      @stevetaylor8298 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Thanks goodness, I thought I was the only one to think they were the ugliest ships to ever sail the waters.

  • @foxtrotwhiskey874
    @foxtrotwhiskey874 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Very good, thought after documentary on Amphibious Assault platforms, Me thinks that these are the future of aircraft carrier style ships, carry unmanned drones on deck and troops below deck.

  • @givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935
    @givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Remember HMAS Melbourne, it sank more warships than any other post war carrier.

  • @matk4731
    @matk4731 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Did not know other nations were building this type of ship. Thanks for sharing 👍🏻👍🏻🙃🙃

  • @andrewmetcalfe9898
    @andrewmetcalfe9898 2 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    A conversion of the Canberra Class LHDs to make use of the F35B is straight forward. Provided capability limitations and purpose are kept in mind. The primary purpose of the Canberra class is amphibious warfare. Creating huge aviation gas fuel stores and a large magazine (together with ammunition lifts and redesigned bulkheads) would significantly take away from THAT capability. However, simple and modest modifications could see each LHD carry a small number (4-8) of F35Bs for specific purposes, such as enhancing the ISR function in an overall fleet A2-AD network, or ground support for a brigade sized expeditionary force where the battlefield has a contested airspace, without wrecking the primary amphibious warfare capability. It would probably cost around $500 million to upgrade each; small money given that a fleet of around 28-36 F3Bs (plus parts, onshore facilities, training etc) would could close to $10 billion to establish. An even better idea would be to follow the Turkish example: develop a maritime version of the RAAF ‘Ghost-bat’ loyal wingman drone. A small number (say 4) of F35Bs operating in combination with a larger number of loyal wingman drones off an LHD would be a capability multiplier for other assets in the fleet (taking the range of AEGIS on the Hobart Class AWDs from 150nm, to perhaps as far as 1000nm out from the fleet). Probably essential for Australia to maintain a proper A2-AD perimeter across the Asia Pacific.

    • @lepermessiyah5823
      @lepermessiyah5823 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      the only way to do it would be to build at least 1 more ship with the specific purpose of utilising F35Bs. that way the interior could be tailor made to suit fixed wing operations and defensive capabilities could be upscaled as currently these ships have little self protection. this like every other option has the downside of needing to fill the positions with people which in the ADF is hard to do, there is already enough retention issues let alone raising a squadron and a ships company. however the main benefit of having a purpose built fixed wing carrier would be interoperability with allied forces, this alone is enough reason to procure a 3rd ship. if a deal could be struck, using a sqn from an allied force on rotation, which save money training pers and acquiring airframes and maintenance. while it would be good to have a indigenous naval fixed wing capability, the costs involved would be monumental especially being F35Bs.

    • @andrewmetcalfe9898
      @andrewmetcalfe9898 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@lepermessiyah5823 ok. Let’s unpack those propositions. First off, the internals would only have to be substantially modified IF one was committed to running full sized squadron operations. If the purpose was to run less than that. Ie. between 4-6 F35Bs, then the internal modifications would need to be less. However, the ADF did a ‘back of the envelope’ costing exercise back in 2014 to ‘hose out’ then PM Abbott’s enthusiasm for F35Bs, and they cam back with a (no doubt inflated) $500 million per unit cost to do the complete conversion. Worth it, IMO - provided the actual reasons for operating F35Bs off naval flight decks stacks up. Whilst there was a concern - mainly from army - that such a conversion would detract from the amphibious warfare capability then under development - in reality it was a potential amphibious warfare force multiplier: the sheer number of sorties that can be generated by a naval air fleet when compared with the sorties that can be generated via land based RAAF assets operating from a very long distance away (not to mention loiter times over the combat zone of operation) is astonishingly in favour of the former. Furthermore, if the asset isn’t needed, then it doesn’t have to be taken with the amphibious warfare expeditionary force: so there is no loss of capability either way - just additional options.
      Regarding defensive capabilities - all western navies now operate under a doctrine that theatre wide air and sea defences are conducted by support ships - ie. AWD and ASW destroyers and frigates - with the ‘big ‘uns’ (ie. aircraft carriers and LHDs etc) only equipped with CIWS defences. In my view the CIWS defences of all RAN capital ships should be upgraded to include short range - rolling airframe surface to air missiles, such as the RIM 119 missiles and the RAM Mk 31 Guided Missile Weapon System (GMWS). Two of these, at each end of a LHD, in combination with a dual phoenix CIS system would be as good as one could hope for. 3 Hobart AWDs, plus 3 ANZAC frigates (to be replaced by Hunter Class frigates in the 2030s) completes the LHD battle group.
      That being said, I don’t disagree with your idea of purchasing another LHD. Especially with HMAS Choules coming up to its third decade of combined RN and RAN service. If we decide to move away from a heavy sea lift specialist ship in favour of another LHD, I’d suggest consideration being given to the Italian Trieste class: slightly bigger than the Jan Carlos, so more room for an enlarged CAG, useful if one wants to operate a combination of tilt rotor, helos, drones, and F35Bs.
      Recruitment and retention in the ADF is a perennial problem, especially in such a tight labor market. However, Australia has a population base of 26 million and the future ADF requirements probably only call for something like 120K of personnel (up from around 100K). Comparatively speaking ADF personnel are well paid. However their is a chronic problem with recruitment and retention that needs addressing. It’s all doable, but someone needs to go through those departments like Hercules cleaning the veritable stables!
      Notions of interoperability are fine, but really only relevant if we actually possess the correct capability in the first place.

    • @fatdoi003
      @fatdoi003 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      how many more destroyers and subs we need to form proper battle groups?

    • @andrewmetcalfe9898
      @andrewmetcalfe9898 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@fatdoi003 on paper, none. 3 x Hobart AWD, plus 3-4 ANZAC Frigates, plus a resupply ship, plus 1 x collins class sub provides enough protection to deploy anything from 1 x LHD through to 2 x LHD, plus 1 x Heavy Sea Lift. However, that would mean using all of our AWD assets at once and relying upon the Collins class - which, while still excellent for Sea Denial patrols in the littoral, lacks the kinetic energy to properly escort a surface battle group over vast oceanic distances these days. If we are serious about our current amphibious capabilities, we probably need the ability to operate battle groups independently of each other and have ‘spare’ AWD and Frigate capacity: That means another 3-6 AWDs (in addition to the planned Hunter Frigates to replace the still extremely capable ANZACs), giving a fleet total of about 15 or 16 AWD/ASW Frigates in total and nuclear subs.

    • @fatdoi003
      @fatdoi003 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@andrewmetcalfe9898 yep... To pay with money that we don't have or just print it anyway?

  • @briansaville8037
    @briansaville8037 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The thumbnail image of the video states that L02 is HMAS Adelaide. L02 is HMAS Canberra. It is interesting that error was made since the video gets it correct within the first 90 secs.

  • @ltyr-mr2if
    @ltyr-mr2if 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Informative (yet sleepy) commentary.
    Good video!

  • @foxtrotwhiskey874
    @foxtrotwhiskey874 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    For Turkey, the cancellation of F35 program is a blessing in disguise and could not have come at a better time. Now their drones will be adoptable with carrier based operations, and making them compact and even more attractive to prospective buyers.

  • @WeMake007
    @WeMake007 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I just loved these ships...love from India 🇮🇳

  • @gryphus64
    @gryphus64 2 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Australia should have a continuous build of these and forget upgrading the current ones. Just build 4 more and use the first two for drones. A very versatile platform and we need more!

    • @Smokeyr67
      @Smokeyr67 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      And are you prepared to pay a 15% GST so we can afford them?

    • @gryphus64
      @gryphus64 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Smokeyr67 Australia needs to build the Bradfield irrigation scheme and others and create a national water grid, this will quadruple agricultural production and end drought affects on production. With a roll out of modular nuclear power we can increase productivity and pay for our defence. GST should be placed on food and have zero exemptions, an indirect tax is fairer and ensures multinationals pay more tax. The UK has a 20% VAT or GST and this did not crash the economy. Major tax reforms with flatter tax brackets and lower company tax would be a very good policy agenda.

    • @Smokeyr67
      @Smokeyr67 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@gryphus64 Lol, you’re first 2 points have no merit, and your ideas on taxation are ridiculous.

    • @gryphus64
      @gryphus64 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Smokeyr67 The Bradfield has a number of proponents including the Liberal and Labor parties and an initial scheme was costed in circa 2020 at $AUD 5 billion, the scheme will be built it is only a matter of when. The UK has a VAT / GST rate of 20% and this did not collapse the economy. GST / VAT should have zero exemptions, even those who don't pay GST must account for it to be reimbursed their inputs already.

  • @shanehansen3705
    @shanehansen3705 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    US marine ospreys have landed on the Canberra before I don't know if they have been stored or used the lifts but not the first time landing

    • @neilturner6749
      @neilturner6749 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Shane did you actually watch the video? It shows the V22 using Canberra’s lift to get up the flight deck from the hangar...

    • @shanehansen3705
      @shanehansen3705 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@neilturner6749 yes I did and as I said I didn't know if they had used the lifts before or been stored onboard but the have landed many times during Talisman Sabre excercise's so not the first time landing as claimed in the vid now to ask you a question did you read my comments and can you comprehend English

  • @megafauna8374
    @megafauna8374 2 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    It'd be a stretch to convert these vessels from a LHD into a mini maritime air attack platform with fast jets. These ships were designed for amphibious assault or humanitarian disaster operations in uncontested waters. With very little engineering modifications they could host F35B's, but against a peer or near peer adversary they'd be dead meat. The F35B's lack range and the ships lacks speed.

    • @ironsideeve2955
      @ironsideeve2955 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I believe the deck would need to be redone, not sure though.

    • @megafauna8374
      @megafauna8374 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@ironsideeve2955 Best estimates I've see is about AUD $250 million to fit out a Canberra class ship to host F35B's. Upgrade, modify below deck lifts, modify and fit fuel and weapons storage, heat and blast protection of the deck are the big engineering challenges. Strategic and operational doctrine issues are an even bigger challenge.

    • @ironsideeve2955
      @ironsideeve2955 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@megafauna8374 yeah then theres the cost of maintenance after that haha.
      Dont get me wrong, aircraft carriers are mad cool, but i just dont see the point in us getting one. Then again, i dont rly know what im talking about

    • @2sqnbandit379
      @2sqnbandit379 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Surely they could put F35’s on board without an issue. There’s even a ski ramp.

    • @ironsideeve2955
      @ironsideeve2955 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@2sqnbandit379 refer to previous comments

  • @maxt7525
    @maxt7525 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Thank you to the Liberal governments of Australia who made these ships a reality 🙌🇦🇺👏❤️

  • @brettcrawford8878
    @brettcrawford8878 ปีที่แล้ว

    Might be an idea to purchase some bayractar drones ( however it is spelt ) to use on the ships or for surveillance elsewhere if that did not work out. Trick would likely be in landing them without damaging them.

  • @clangerbasher
    @clangerbasher 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    The ski ramp is structural it can't just be deleted from the original design. That's why it is present in the RAN hulls.

    • @PPPOOOFJJD
      @PPPOOOFJJD ปีที่แล้ว

      Turkey deleted theirs😂

    • @Kurio71
      @Kurio71 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@PPPOOOFJJD really 🤣

  • @konradson
    @konradson 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Hope we see F-35B on board L61 Juan Carlos I soon. It seems that the Spanish Government has decided for F-35A as substitute to EF/A-18Ms in the Pennynsula (both Madrid and Zaragoza wings)...

    • @luisterrats2290
      @luisterrats2290 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Spain does not plan to buy more US planes. To replace the F-18M, Spain is going to do the same thing that it has done to replace the F-18A, to buy more Typhoons. Spain cannot use USA planes in combat. The same thing happens to the Arab countries with Israel, those weapons cannot be used in a war against Israel. Spain can only enter a war with the only enemy it has, which is Morocco, and against Morocco it cannot use US weapons. Then there is that Spain has not bought a bomber since 1939 when it bought the German He-111. The news of the Spanish purchase of the F-35 appears every two three years since 2004 and is always denied, journalists are bribed or directly the managers announce an imminent signing of a contract that Spain could never pay.
      No Spain is not going to buy either the F-35 or any US combat aircraft.

  • @davidlee-michaels9430
    @davidlee-michaels9430 2 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    It's all well and good to say "we need more destroyers, we need more frigates, we need F35b's", but you also need a crew to man them. Right now we don't have the numbers which is what the gubment should be focusing on along with whatever new assets we acquire. There's fuck all exposure and the ads we have for recruitment are hardly inspiring.

    • @nedkelly9688
      @nedkelly9688 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Was why Ghost Bat Loyal wingman was built but seems we haven't planeed to buy many yet..
      Our Government seems clueless on our military.. if can't get pilots then wouldn't drones be the option also.

    • @ausaskar
      @ausaskar 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      There's no shortage of applicants, but DFR turn them all down.

    • @fryaduck
      @fryaduck 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      When the HMAS Melbourne was retired nearly all of the Fleet Air Arm (RANFAA) fixed wing technicians and aircrew transferred service to the RAAF. If they decided to restart the fixed wing RANFAA more than likely they would pilfer technicians and pilots from the RAAF, probably offering quick promotions, obviously reducing the operational effectiveness of the RAAF. Because of this they would cherry pick the best for the RANFAA leaving the RAAF even worse off.
      Losing the long range strike capabilities of the F-111 we have yet to replace them with the same capability. The F/A-18F Super Hornets and F-35A simply don't have the range even with air to air refuelling.

    • @tams805
      @tams805 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@fryaduck It would just be like what the UK (stupidly) did.
      Stupidly, as in we should have kept the old carriers, which made retaining skills more difficult. But it is possible.

    • @Smokeyr67
      @Smokeyr67 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@tams805 The Melbourne was on her last legs, we had planned to buy the HMS Invincible but the Falklands war mad the RN re-evaluate the deal.

  • @moisty1874
    @moisty1874 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Good informative video, well done. One new subscriber.

  • @paulfletcher110
    @paulfletcher110 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Really enjoyed your video 👌👌

  • @timn6864
    @timn6864 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Realistically, how far would we be projecting our f35s for defence that couldn't be done from forward operating bases with air to air refueling etc?

    • @craigbeatty8565
      @craigbeatty8565 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      The South China Sea for example!

    • @blades4741
      @blades4741 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Agreed aerial refueling and overseas bases do enable a much wider range but they definitely limit the time in which these strikes can be carried out and is why the US always deploys their carriers because the ships can get the aircraft there much faster

    • @ironsideeve2955
      @ironsideeve2955 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@craigbeatty8565 unrealistic i think.
      Projecting into international waters means that u need a fleet to defend the carrier, which (i think) can’t afford.
      Carriers are just a big target for hypersonic missiles.
      Anyway, i don’t really know shit though

  • @yesterdayschunda1760
    @yesterdayschunda1760 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Can't see it ever happening with the two LHD we have. Maybe if we get 2 more they will carry the f35 but as is Canberra and Adelaide are mainly used for peace time missions and their ability to transport troops and cargo is more essential than showing a force with air power.

    • @2sqnbandit379
      @2sqnbandit379 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      The Royal Navy already has 2 supercarriers carrying f35’s. HMS Prince of wales & Queen Elizabeth. It’s all the same Royal Navy at the end of the day.

    • @yesterdayschunda1760
      @yesterdayschunda1760 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@2sqnbandit379 No it's not, RAN is its own thing. We have an alliance with America and the UK called AUKUS though.

    • @2sqnbandit379
      @2sqnbandit379 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@yesterdayschunda1760 sorry I’m American. I thought it was all part of the British commonwealth. The Queen is head of state isn’t she? I served in the US navy, I worked with the Brits and they had Australians in their ranks as officers. They can freely join between the RN and RAN so I thought effectively it was all the Royal Navy really. Same ranks, traditions, even had pictures of the Queen everywhere. To me it was exactly the same force. Does the Queen have command over the Australian navy then? Sorry if I sound ignorant. I found the same thing in Canada.

    • @yesterdayschunda1760
      @yesterdayschunda1760 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@2sqnbandit379 Australia gained independence from the UK in 1901

    • @2sqnbandit379
      @2sqnbandit379 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@yesterdayschunda1760 I don’t see how it is as the British Queen is still head of state. She has command over the Australian forces. We gained independence from GB in 1776 we are a republic with the president as head of state. We don’t have a Union Jack on our flag and have no Queen. The RN & RAN have the same commander and chief.

  • @longsighted
    @longsighted 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I understand that currently the deck cannot take the F35b because of heat problems caused by the engine thrust.

  • @read.learn.think.3251
    @read.learn.think.3251 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The Turks have the right idea; drones. These ships were never meant to "project power", but rather to quickly transport Aussie troops from the east coast to their west & northern coasts. Lightweight drones providing eyes in the sky & fire support for landings is the way to go.

  • @iffracem
    @iffracem 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    They're going to have to get the Canberra class working properly as ships first, before they even think of using F35's or not. They've been plagued with problems, and the last deployment of Adelaide in Tonga was a farce.

  • @craigbeatty8565
    @craigbeatty8565 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    It would be a good idea to get the decks coated to take F-35s at least.

  • @phil20_20
    @phil20_20 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Given your surroundings, I'l surprised you don't have more navy. No time like the present! 👋🤠👍

    • @aaronleverton4221
      @aaronleverton4221 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      How do you plan to crew it?

    • @dpitt1516
      @dpitt1516 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      You would think a country the size of Australia would have a more powerful defense force - but No !

  • @simpl3simon806
    @simpl3simon806 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The answer is no because the Australian Navy has already stated that the surface of the flight deck is not suited for jet engine exhaust. Also they would have to reconfigure the entire operation and lay out of the aircraft hanger to accommodate the F 35. The Canberra class are LHD and not aircraft carrier. They are designed for the purpose of expeditionary forces being deployed overseas. Not for the purpose of deploying fighter jets at sea. The reason why Australia purchased the Canberra classic LHD was because of a shortfall they experienced during the East Timor operations of 1999. To deploy F 35 on the Canberra class would result in the purpose of the Canberra class LHD not fulfilling its role.

    • @OFFTRACKPLACES
      @OFFTRACKPLACES  2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Very interesting perspective, thank you 👍

  • @ronniefarnsworth6465
    @ronniefarnsworth6465 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    It also needs a much better real world Air Defense systems with a Chicom fight coming !!!
    The USN LHD/LHA have ESSM, RAM & Vulcan CIWS !!! A great Air Defense with Laser CIWS coming in the near future !!

  • @waterboi8197
    @waterboi8197 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Everyone sees a boat when we in the navy see all the maintenance and work to keep them working

  • @000pete9
    @000pete9 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Could be a big limitation Without fixed wings F35sB it's only for follow up " support operations including civil and natural disasters responses " not front line fighting ship for big island continent with thousands of sea miles and SCS, hypersonic missiles will be hunting for prize targets.

  • @bubujibujibuji958
    @bubujibujibuji958 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Merry Christmas to you Aussie

  • @peanut1412
    @peanut1412 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    The HMAS Canberrra is L02 and the HMAS Adelaide is L01, no I don’t know why but it is what it is

  • @mronline1220
    @mronline1220 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    They should look to join the CVX class program with south korea, UK and Italy. Its basically a mini version of the Queen Elizabeth class.

  • @Jacob-W-5570
    @Jacob-W-5570 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    2:53 If they are not intended for fixed wing aircrafts, why do they have a ski jump on the bow then?
    - and the rest of the video did explain that. I soke to soon.

  • @Framuarr
    @Framuarr ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Excellent video. I’d like to add a comment about the “Spanish” F35B for the navy. Spain has decided to increase the military budget in this decade until 2% of the GDP, for the war in Ucraine. This year, the Spanish navy has “reserved” 6 billions euros for the next years to substitute the Harrier. This year is going to spend 90 millions to study the alternatives. Observing the budget, it seems obvious that they are considering to buy, at least, 10-12 F35B.

  • @leapdrive
    @leapdrive 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    The answer can be found on the bow section design where the runway is a ski-jump design.

  • @themastermagicians2745
    @themastermagicians2745 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Royal Australian Navy needs a proper aircraft carrier 💪🇦🇺👍

  • @alexandermarken7639
    @alexandermarken7639 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    To be honest the conversion of the Australian LHD at 500 million is not good return for the money. The two decks will operate 16 between then whereas a new clean build with no Dock but troop capacity and Helo operations would likely be worth more in the long run. I would want two to be purchased as that then makes for larger F-35B purchase and also reduces the wear on the two LHD in use already. Talks for a further three AWD to bring class totals to 6 and then 8 T26 Hunter would indicate the option to buy a pair of Carrier/ Amphib Helo carriers would be good. The Izumo Class looks like a great option and at 1.5 billion for two would be built ready from day one for the kind of operations a V/STOL Carrier/Helo Carrier needs. It also has the speed to be an actual warship lol. Canberra having less than half the SHP of the Izumo.

  • @ptracey44
    @ptracey44 ปีที่แล้ว

    Fantastic to see the Harriers on the Spanish carrier - the Royal Navy should never have gotten rid of theirs!

  • @عبادهسعد-ت1ج
    @عبادهسعد-ت1ج ปีที่แล้ว +1

    استرليا ستعزز قواتهم في الخليج وخصوصاً في السعودية لمحاربت التنظيم الدعشي وتنضيم القاعدة الذي انطلقة منها
    ابو باقر الكصاب الكاظمي

  • @adm.petercowell9573
    @adm.petercowell9573 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    We can never really be sure. While it may be policy today the reality is often something quite different. I am sure that there was some intention to keep the option open for future fixed wing combat capability. I base this on my own personal observations while attending an Airshow out at RAAF base Pearce in Western Australia where the RAAF train their fighter pilots graduating from PC9s through to HAWKs before selection for F18s or F-35s. Interestingly the public were being a look at a Hawk by a Royal Australian Navy sub-lieutenant pilot. Why would the navy be training fighter pilots if there is no intention to keep the skill set within Navy? Why spend budget funds to keep a skillset Navy does not intend to use? I think its a case of "watch this space".

    • @richardcostello360
      @richardcostello360 ปีที่แล้ว

      That's because we're a tri service defence force......
      That's why the Canberra class and the Choules both have army helo pilots flying the choppers
      Why you'll find RAAfie base guards training and deploy with infantry units
      And why military police are non service specific

  • @SurvivethePoleShift
    @SurvivethePoleShift 2 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Of course we should. F-35B's even 6 or 8 at sea would provide adequate minimal Fleet CAP.
    Labor changed this Ship's Class design [for Aust Conditions] so as to REMOVE those design aspects, that were required for any fixed wing configuration, back when they ordered them from Spain.
    And now if we want that capability back, Australian Taxpayers will pay for it through the nose.
    Refit them anyway those F-35's are vital.

    • @puffin51
      @puffin51 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      No number of F-35B's that could be fitted on these ships could provide a useful CAP, because they average 0.4 sorties per day, and have an average down to flying time ratio of about twenty to one. This aircraft might be viable as an intruder against high-value static targets within its combat radius of about 450 nautical miles, or as a command/control node, or for recon, provided that its requirement for dust-free humidity and temperature controlled maintenance facilities and very full line crews can be met, but it would be disastrous as a fighter. Not because it can't fight, but because when it's needed, it won't be there.

    • @alexlanning712
      @alexlanning712 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      your hindsight is 20-20

    • @SurvivethePoleShift
      @SurvivethePoleShift 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@alexlanning712 Indeed I outed labor's poor decision at the time, but few were bothered. It was a bad decision just like many other decisions they make for Defence.

    • @SurvivethePoleShift
      @SurvivethePoleShift 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@puffin51 Me thinks yea protesteth too much. I bet you favour the CCP leasing Darwin for 99 years too.

    • @alexlanning712
      @alexlanning712 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@SurvivethePoleShift The last time Labor was in power the F35 (if thats the plane you intended for the RAN) were a "can of worms" and in crisis as a viable option.At that time you would have needed a crystal ball and a lot of faith to see how it panned out

  • @heisdeadjim
    @heisdeadjim ปีที่แล้ว

    Some of you have missed several obvious things.
    In no particular order. The F35B is as I understand it in the STOVL variant of the -35.
    The USMC is the only purchaser of the -35B.
    Australia has several defence and security pacts with the United States, not limited to but including ANZUS, AUKUS, Five Eyes.
    At the beginning of this video it shows the Canberra sailing from Pearl Harbour as 0art of RIMPAC. Interoperability.
    Being as the design is sourced I believe from the Juan Carlos class, there's probably major structural rebuilds sonit makes sense to leave it be.

  • @dannypope1860
    @dannypope1860 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Australia can’t even realize nuclear energy is their best path forward.
    It’s a very odd country with bizarre superstitions.
    Modern nuclear power plants can NOT meltdown or go critical. We’re working with technology that is 60 years more advanced then what other, existing power plants had installed.

  • @robertaustin6940
    @robertaustin6940 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The Canberra class design could be used as the basis for a medium sized catobar carrier with two hangars. Get rid of the well deck and turn that whole area into a second hangar. Would go well with a maratime version of the SAAB Gripen.

    • @valenrn8657
      @valenrn8657 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Maritime SAAB Gripen is unproven.

    • @robertaustin6940
      @robertaustin6940 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@valenrn8657 I'm sure SAAB would have no problem coming up with a maritime version of the Gripen if someone needed it.

    • @valenrn8657
      @valenrn8657 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@robertaustin6940 Faith is not a valid argument.

    • @AA-xo9uw
      @AA-xo9uw 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@robertaustin6940 Saab has modified one Gripen that operated briefly aboard INS Vikramaditya in hopes that India would enable them to develop the Gripen Maritime. Those hopes remains unfulfilled.

  • @tonysu8860
    @tonysu8860 ปีที่แล้ว

    There are few options moving forward. The Harrier is no longer produced or supported by anyone so all existing fleets will deteriorate quickly and be cannibalized for parts. The F-35B is the only option moving forward for manned aircraft. The only other alternative is to become a dedicated unmanned aircraft platform but currently there are big compromises in payload and range, drones like the TB-2 carry a payload only about 1-6 or less than light manned fighter jets, are generally subsonic and have a very limited range.

  • @tams805
    @tams805 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I hope they do. Any war in the Pacific or SE Asia is going to require any and every landing option for the the F-35Bs available. It is, after all, one of their main reasons for existing.

    • @fatdoi003
      @fatdoi003 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      what war in SE Asia?

  • @artistjoh
    @artistjoh 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Rather than converting existing ships that are already well suited to the Marines style amphibious landing role, it is better to build one or two new ships that get modified from the beginning to operate the F35B. With two oceans in which there is likely to be operations if China decides to go to war, two Canberra class are not enough as it does not allow for dry dock time. Three or four vessels enables having at least two ships operational while one is in dry dock. Having a specialist fixed wing ship and another three destroyers gives greater flexibility in combat operations.

    • @OFFTRACKPLACES
      @OFFTRACKPLACES  2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Thanks artistjoh, you certainly given this some thought, enjoyed reading it, alot of comments supporting the idea of a third Canberra class ship, as you say, modified at build to operate F-35B would at least reduce costs, hopefully...

  • @Snaerffer
    @Snaerffer 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    We don’t have the correct model of aircraft to fly off these. Ours are entirely A models- capable of airfield use only.

  • @martnez2003
    @martnez2003 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Did the ships experience any more propulsion problems with the Siemens system?

    • @OFFTRACKPLACES
      @OFFTRACKPLACES  2 ปีที่แล้ว

      I was checking last night! Nothing has come through any of my news feeds, hopefully the Siemens Navantia 11-megawatt azimuth thrusters on both ships are working well. Back here in the UK, it looks like HMS Prince Of Wales will end up in dry dock!

  • @cynicalPixels
    @cynicalPixels ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Can't even crew the shit we've already got lol.

  • @MrSmokeyroo
    @MrSmokeyroo 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Odd that no one has ever noticed the flight deck has a black line painted right down the deck going all the way up the ramp . Just like the invincible class carriers had. Now why is painted for jump jet aircraft if it will never use them .

  • @petefluffy7420
    @petefluffy7420 ปีที่แล้ว

    Do you think ships might be more appropriate ?

  • @johngodden4363
    @johngodden4363 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    It is Sept ‘24 and there has been recent proposals for several other democracies to join tier 2 of AUKUS, including Japan. I mention this because Australia, having reviewed its surface fleet will acquire / build eleven smaller frigates to go with its large Hunter Class and AWDs. Japan is a lead contender for this contract. More to the point Japan has two modified IZUMO class Carriers, similar in size to Australia’s LHDs (28,000 tonnes) but with two large lifts ( one aft and one amidships) and has a great turn of speed at 30+ knots, ( unlike the LHDs at 21 knots ). Australia should look to cooperate with Japan to build more IZUMO Class Carriers, to share and mitigate costs and to obtain the knowledge and experience in running aircraft carriers ( an art lost in time ).
    It wouldn’t hurt to build the second tranche of Hunter Class frigates as the upgunned variants on offer from the UK with 96 VLS magazines. We need to get serious! The Chinese are well ahead of the game.

  • @nic7048
    @nic7048 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    by the way how can it really be 500 million to convert then Japan did it for far less and its 2 LHD ships are about the same size as Canberra. It didnt take long for them to convert and they can take 10-12 F35's

  • @geraldshields9035
    @geraldshields9035 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Yes, but how many will the ship be able to operate?

  • @Brian-om2hh
    @Brian-om2hh 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    I didn't notice many defensive weapons on deck? I take it there are some?

  • @hadri_7993
    @hadri_7993 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Hay que informarse mejor.. Estructuralme el buque se diseño teniendo en cuenta las dimensiones, peso y emisiones de calor del F-35, de hecho en varios ejercicios ya operó con estos aviones desde su cubierta de vuelo.. Lo que no tienen los Camberra y si tiene el Juan Carlos, es el tratamiento de la cubierta de vuelo... Video poco riguroso y mal documentado.

    • @OFFTRACKPLACES
      @OFFTRACKPLACES  2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Hola hadri_799, gracias por tu comentario. No he visto ningún informe, hasta el momento, del aterrizaje del F-35B en el Juan Carlos. Estaría muy interesado en los detalles. Como saben, el Juan Carlos fue diseñado y construido antes de que se conocieran todas las características de vuelo del F-35B. Las altas temperaturas térmicas del F-35B ciertamente fueron una sorpresa para el LHD estadounidense. Sería genial saber qué ha hecho la Armada española para tener en cuenta el peso del F-35B y la protección de la superficie de la plataforma de aterrizaje. Gracias.

    • @longsighted
      @longsighted 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      I understand from a visit in the very first year the deck was not able to withstand heat of the F35b. Needs an upgrade for full operation. Also very lightly armed except for anti submarine operations using helicopters. As understand back 7 years ago further upgrade of armament was to take place as needed using latest technology.

  • @henrymann8122
    @henrymann8122 ปีที่แล้ว

    The Aussies have a relatively small military overall, yet very capable.

  • @waynehankinson8210
    @waynehankinson8210 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Australia should buy the Nimitz Class aircraft carrier that the U.S. is going to retire in 2025 and then buy the next two in-line to be retired. Nuclear powered aircraft carrier is the way to go. With 3 large carriers Australia would be able to have a strong defense against China/Russia.

    • @Benjd0
      @Benjd0 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      It's just not viable really, they're already expensive ships as they are, but having to maintain even one carrier of this size that's already around 50 years old wouldn't make any sense for Australia. That's not to mention crewing 3 of these would take practically the entire Australian Navy.
      A smaller conventional ship with more automation like the UKs Queen Elizabeth class may be more viable, but even that will likely never happen.

  • @bigman23DOTS
    @bigman23DOTS ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Unfortunately there are those who have made up their minds regarding Australia having marine fixed wing capabilities tragic really as this simply doesn’t suit current strategic interests the f35b and the new concept tilt rotor helicopter replacement would

  • @aggressivecalm
    @aggressivecalm 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    The Australian coastline extends approximately 34,000 kilometres.
    Australia is about to join an exclusive group of nations operating one of the most lethal military platforms ever conceived - nuclear-powered submarines. This is happening.
    It is impossible to read this as anything other than a response to China’s building aggression, and a significant escalation of American commitment to that challenge. The United States has only ever shared this technology with the United Kingdom, so the fact that Australia is now joining this club indicates that the United States is prepared to take significant new steps and break with old norms to meet the China challenge.
    It is wise to assume that the scale of this agreement, and the close strategic and operational links it implies, will create expectations from Washington. Australia cannot have this capability while assuming that it does not come with heightened expectations that Australia will take America’s side in any dispute with China.
    This decision is a long-term bet on the endurance of the AUKUS alliance, and on the likelihood that the US has the resolve to stay in Asia.
    It is also worth saying that these submarines will be largely dependent on US and UK nuclear know-how.

  • @sharpshooter_Aus
    @sharpshooter_Aus 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    You can’t really take what our defence force has said last year shit has changed drastically in our region hence why we are buying the B-2 raider when it’s ready our first long range bomber in many years, I wouldn’t be surprised if they purchase a few f-35bs to put in the LHDs they’ll probably test it with some yank planes first though.
    I think if they do it’ll be for the 3rd LHD our navy wants it’ll be a bit bigger and be primarily used further offshore for more command operations.

  • @robertcameron5007steelwheel
    @robertcameron5007steelwheel 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    2 carrier's no aircraft no air cover of the fleet no defence

    • @tinaliebe5118
      @tinaliebe5118 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Yes agree but we do have nuk weapons some were and about 50 f-35 long range hyper sonic missiles ect ect ect

  • @maddogmorgan1
    @maddogmorgan1 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Us Aussies are no good at seaborne aircraft operations! Check out the RAN's track record when they had A-4's on a carrier!

    • @Leon1Aust
      @Leon1Aust ปีที่แล้ว

      That is total bullshit! The RAN did well with a small carrier the size of HMAS Melbourne. USN flight crews were always saying our carrier was too small to land on.

  • @searcher99c70
    @searcher99c70 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    No way the RAAF could provide necessary air cover to the RAN in combat situation against discussed adversaries. F-35B is only option. However a dedicated carrier is the only true solution.

  • @ICB-vl3ym
    @ICB-vl3ym ปีที่แล้ว

    Modify the deck to handle the heat, and host USMC F35Bs and Ospreys when needed. F35s can act as AWACS.

  • @julianmizzi1295
    @julianmizzi1295 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    How many helicopters u see use a ski jump for take off ?

    • @crusher8017
      @crusher8017 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      It would have cost more to remove the ski jump.

    • @AA-xo9uw
      @AA-xo9uw 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      That's what happens when you buy a COTS boat

  • @georgeargolo6310
    @georgeargolo6310 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    AUSTRÁLIA MARINE NAVY COMMANDER MILITARY 🦘🦘🦘⚓️⚓️⚓️ 😃😃😃👍👍👍UAU UAU UAU UAU UAU UAU 🇭🇲

  • @gonbal2
    @gonbal2 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Australian ships with few adaptations and with acceptable costs, are able to operate F35 aircraft, twelve aircraft in hangar and at least 10 on deck. If the Japanese ships that never had the idea of carrying planes are doing it, with more reason the Australian ships that since their planning already had the option of carrying planes.🙂

    • @AndrewinAus
      @AndrewinAus 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Acceptable costs? Billions spent on probably 2 dozen F35 Bravo's then the modifications to the vessels themselves. Then the airforce and navy learning all over again how to use and operate a carrier group and that is before you even start talking about additional supply vessels and escorts and for what to put 8 aircraft in rotation in the air with reduced fuel and weapons payload because of the dirty great big lift fan behind the pilot.

  • @edwardgilmour9013
    @edwardgilmour9013 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    It would make more sense if they equipped them with STOL drones and STOL turbo fan prop aircraft.; cheaper & more effective against minor foes.

  • @charllieb8067
    @charllieb8067 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    No fixed wing aircraft? What's with the ski jump?

    • @donaldcake1
      @donaldcake1 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      left over from the Spanish original design

  • @TheGrowler55
    @TheGrowler55 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Rule Britannia from Glasgow 😎 🇬🇧👍

  • @established_1803
    @established_1803 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    why dont we just upgrade the harriers n f22s?