It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Australia drops F-35B for new assault ships

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
The Australian government has dropped plans to buy between 18 and 24 F-35Bs, to be placed on board the Canberra and Adelaide. A combination of modification cost to the ships, the unlikely requirement to operate them off one of them, and the reduction of the RAAF F-35A buy was cited. Both ships are undergoing trials, and will operate helicopters off their decks.


Australia has dropped consideration of buying the short takeoff and vertical landing (Stovl) version of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning for its two largest assault ships, a defense source says.

The decision was made during preparation of a defense white paper that may be published next month.

Deploying Stovl fighters, proposed last year by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, would have required costly modifications to the two ships, says the Australian Financial Review newspaper, which first reported that the idea had been abandoned.

There was widespread opposition across the armed services to buying the F-35B, the defense source tells Aviation Week.

aviationweek.com...




posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
They probably read this…

article



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Or, instead of reading year and a half old articles, they read this one.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Both articles and the OP state the same thing…


Deploying Stovl fighters, proposed last year by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, would have required costly modifications to the two ships…



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Maybe it was those $600,000 helmets that changed their mind.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Zaphod58

Both articles and the OP state the same thing…


Deploying Stovl fighters, proposed last year by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, would have required costly modifications to the two ships…




Because it is a factual statement. If you introduce a weapon system to a ship design that was not intended for it they are normally going to require costly modifications .


Come on dude you're a bigger man than that. Just admit you used an old source .



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse


Come on dude you're a bigger man than that. Just admit you used an old source .

The source is old, the problem the same. Down wash and heat, from too much hovering trying to land on a pitching deck.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

And if you read the newer article, instead of going with a year and a half old article, a fix has been found for it. And not limiting sorties as was stated in your article. A new deck coating was developed, which they had been working towards since the problem was first seen.
edit on 7/9/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


a fix has been found for it.

My point was the Aussies don't think its worth it to refit the ships. They waited long enough, don't you think?

ETA: Not the only problem either, but I see you want to argue every point as usual.

intrptr out.
edit on 9-7-2015 by intrptr because: ETA:



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm thinking that the Aussies are thinking more of having to build the silly takeoff ramps that merely some changes to the flooring.

Would you buy an expensive new car if they dealer came late to you and told you that you needed a ramp in your driveway for it to work as advertised?
edit on 9-7-2015 by Aliensun because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

That was one reason they gave. The bigger reason was that they don't need them. They aren't going to be in a position where they require ship based aircraft, so they decided against buying them.

As for "waiting long enough", it's not like they had the solution sitting around. It takes time to develop new deck coatings that remain attached to the deck, so they don't FOD the engines out, and can stand up to repeated exposure to extreme heat, salt spray, and all the conditions that it will be exposed to.

So YOU only bring up the heat, and when I dispute it, I'M "arguing every little point, as usual". Wow. Got it.
edit on 7/9/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/9/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Zap i got a question. is i tonly the Vertical take off ones having all the issues? Dont the other models lack the hovering ability?



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Were these aircraft to be in addition to the 72 we committed to . It seems that the air-force website is not quite up to date as they were not mentioned below
.


In the future, a fourth operational squadron will be considered for RAAF Base Amberley, for a total of 100 F-35As.


Sorry could not link so i put in future aquisitions

www.airforce.gov.au...



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

Yes. They would have reduced the A model order, to accommodate the B models for the ships, if they had ordered them.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So we are still at 72 with the possibility of more , good , also i did not know we were getting /have the growler . From the link .



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Or maybe they just ran out of money



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

The A's and the C's don't have the lift fan or the same exhaust nozzles as the B's. The issues with the deck heat is limited to just them.
It's mostly because of the rotating tail exhaust nozzle that points the majority of the engine's exhaust down at the deck at close range.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Looks like their endless debt and endless war has a service ceiling.



new topics




 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join