The F-35B Option: the Future of Australian Naval Aviation?

Ever since the commissioning of the Canberra class LHDs in 2014, there has been substantial discussion over their use in the role of Light Aircraft Carrier, via the acquisition and deployment of the F-35B. Although the ADF has not made any public statements indicating interest in this capability, a persistent debate has continued within the Australian strategic community, one that has been dominated by the negative argument. This documentary aims to place that debate on much firmer ground by examining some of the claims made by the dominant 'no' camp, with the clear goal of improving the public discussion around the Canberra class and their potential to serve as STOVL carriers.
0:00 Introduction
5:22 The Canberra Class's Aviation Capability
14:06 Would the F-35B Option diminish the Canberra's Amphibious Capability?
20:46 Is the Air Group large enough to be useful?
30:16 How useful would this capability be to Australia?
35:24 What about the RAAF's tankers?
40:26 Cant Australia just rely on its allies?
43:30 The whole idea will just be too expensive
49:44 Conclusion

[@Nbrimmer27]

12 F 35b's might not be enough, but 12 paired with a contingent of 3-4 loyal wingmen per plane, you suddenly have a massive capability. Those loyal wingmen take up way less room too.

[@marksita76]

Much lighter, much cheaper, and no aircrew risk, all with the same performance as a fighter. Can easily see them partnered with both air to air refueling drones and AWACS drones in future too to extend range and loitering times with the fleet kept at a safe distance.

[@benharris211]

Pretty sure the loyal wingmen drones are solely land-based, not naval.

[@marksita76]

@@benharris211 They are at the moment but how long before defence departments worldwide realise the benefits of adapting them for naval use? It's only a matter of time. Drone warfare along with some level of human element on land air and sea is the way of the future. eventually.

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

@@benharris211 they are, but they are also light as, so they could launch off ski-ramp LHDs without having to invest in big catapult systems (although a small - 5 to 10KW EMALS cat on the starboard side in front of the forward lift might be a viable modification if required). Light arrestor wire recovery systems could also be installed on the LHDs without too much drama. Embarking a squadron of F35s, but a dozen maritime variants of the loyal wingman could see the 24/7 CAP function undertaken by a single F35 (rotating on a 3-4 hr patrol basis) with 4 or so Wingman paired to that single manned plane, with the other aviation assets on standby to help put the stick about if required. The F35 is a force multiplier. The loyal wingman is an autonomous platform, but without the F35s big brain. It’s meant to team with manned platforms. This may change over the next 30 years though. Especially when quantum computing takes AI to another level.

[@jeffmoore2351]

Smart thinking.

[@kcharles8857]

As far as research, analysis, and presentation go, this is probably the most intelligent military channel I've come across. (Also Dung Tran's isn't too shabby either)

[@vincentmanners2589]

Good appreciation of war fighting doctrine.

[@wrxer79]

Agree mate, it is very methodical and clear how he came to conclusions. Whilst many others you can tell they just read from wiki, used Google, or just rehashed from official places that tend to have a strong bias one way or another. Ie America military channels I found tend to have a focus on we are the best, and no focus on the areas their military asserts may lack in. Ie videos such as the patriot missile system is superior to the s400 and alike without really breaking down the facts about why its superior.

[@mcelroychandler6267]

Yes, Tran's videos are great and quite informative.

[@jhk8396]

@@mcelroychandler6267 @MCELROY CHANDLER I beg to differ, at least partially. He made an entire video about the F-36 with straigh-up doesn't exist, not even as a prototype or blueprint. USAF was doing a case study on if designing and fielding such a plane was feasible, but that got blown out of proportion, and people think they're actually pursuing a fighter. He also made a video stating that the UK is losing interest in the F-35B and cutting procurement substantially. There was a more recent update that procurement will likely be much more than the publicized 48 (down from 138). He stated that the UK is diverting support to the Tempest, which makes no sense because Tempest also doesn't exist yet and is more than a decade away. Also the F-35B is the only carrier-capable fighter the UK has. As honest as he is, he didn't seem to delve much deeper than a news article. Most other videos, he was much more comprehensive.

[@YaMomsOyster]

I like Dung Tran, but can’t understand a bloody word half the time!

[@theholyasdf3593]

Whenever you say stats like tonnage, speed, fuel capacity, sorty rate - maybe put them on the screen as text - easier to think about, especially when you were comparing two ships/aircraft

[@Andy81ish]

Agree, that would be a nice touch

[@campbelltown3065]

Well done mate. Excellent piece of analysis. Agree wholeheartedly. Having served in a number of regional hotspots nothing would've boosted morale faster and further than the knowledge that an Australian F35B was sitting on a ship within a few minutes flying time from our location. F18s sitting on an airfield in Tindall weren't much help to a patrol in Timor's Mount LeoLaco in 1999.

[@patricksoos674]

Hey, Could you drop a KZbin link you would recommend so we could appreciate what happened at Mt Leo please ?

[@tlevans62]

I applaud you for posting these videos and your thought process and assumptions are very well reasoned. I’m a former officer in the ADF and was involved in Force Development (Aerospace) in the 1990s and worked on the AIR5333 project as well as AIR87. One of the biggest issues we faced was always the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and even though the Project Team’s recommendations may have been for a particular platform that fitted our needs the best, this could be overwritten by the thoughts of a particular Director General who might prefer one option over the other, or in the case of the RAN, who often did their own thing, a Project Manager who wrote requirements specifically so they favoured a supplier they liked the most, especially if they saw the possibility of a lucrative future with that supplier once they left the ADF, often in deference for the needs of the ADF as a whole. The other thing that often happens is that the Parliamentary committee would decide on a platform with promised capability, rather than proven capability, as long as the offsets etc were better and suited their domestic political needs. The Tiger is a prime example. Had the preferences of the AIR87 Team at the Russell Offices been taken into consideration, there would have been AH-64Ds being ordered instead. In the end, the Project Team will short list the best options, and give their reasons as to why they prefer a particular type over another, but the Civilian Committee can select any of the types that make the short list, as long as they make that list. It seems though, that the threat of the PRC becoming expeditionary has changed some thinking, since the AH-64E was selected in a hurry, and is the right selection to make, as it was during AIR87, and for mostly the same reasons. The F-35B should be seriously considered now as well. Keep up the great work!

[@geradkavanagh8240]

Wonderful comment. Still mulling over my own thought of " Should these Amphibious platforms be multi role and modular in design". This video really makes me think these ships need ability to be rapidly refitted to suit the task. Only way to do it quickly is having basic modules premade for the task otherwise weeks or months in the dockyards. As far as the AH-64's was concerned, I reckon a better choice as we can get parts a lot easier. I'm sure even a group of 2 or 3 F-35B's on our Canberra class ships would be advantageous for long range detection.

[@sophrapsune]

Even 25 years ago it was dogs-ball-obvious that AIR87 should’ve gone with Apache. The choice to go with Tiger was either gross acquisition incompetence or frank corruption, and very possibly a bit of both. However, the idea of giving the RAAF some F-35Bs and expecting them to generate a fleet aviation capability in addition to their other roles grossly underestimates both the complexity of that capability and the capability trade-offs it would impose.

[@tlevans62]

@@sophrapsune I think that if they were to go with F-35B they'd do it like the UK and cross train and support them with the USMC.

[@Csqd1975]

@@sophrapsune So what you're saying in affect is its too hard, So the loss of capital ship to hostile missiles would not be a trade off or loss of capacity. Given the serious treats we now face and Australian's GDP of 1.5 trillion we could well afford 24 F-34Bs.

[@sophrapsune]

@@Csqd1975 No, that’s no what I’m saying. I’m saying that a fleet fixed air capability is very complex to train, maintain and operate. The first capability trade-off is one of time and expertise. Expecting the RAAF to do that in addition to its current fighter tasking is a major distraction from both existing tasking and the complex fleet air role. They can’t be a jack of all trades. A dedicated fleet air arm (RAN or RAAF) would be required to avoid that. The second capability trade-off is that the F-35B is burdened with STVOL equipment that impacts its performance in other fighter roles. The third capability trade-off is that fleet air capability doesn’t come for free. Investing in that capability means diverting resources from some other Defence capability, as an opportunity cost. In short, there is no such thing as getting an aircraft carrier on the cheap and a minor add-on capability. The idea that we could get a fixed fleet air capability “just” by ordering F35Bs instead of another model is fanciful. It requires a very serious investment and payment of opportunity costs.

[@stevem.5548]

Even if Australia didn't buy its own F-35Bs, making the ships capable of supporting F-35B operations could be a big advantage: in the event of a large conflict, the US Marines or Royal Navy could forward deploy F-35Bs to operate from the Australian ships to provide CAP and a light strike capability while repositioning their full Carrier Strike Groups.

[@DANINREDDY]

ok colonial

[@tylerclayton6081]

@@DANINREDDY we are allies just like in WW2 where the US saved Australia from invasion

[@BeKindToBirds]

Wise, Australia has always had a key role with her cousins and has always shined in expeditionary war.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

Training with F-35Bs and being able to drop into NATO carrier groups and US Marine units is very useful, even if you never buy your own F-35Bs

[@mattiOTX]

​​@@tylerclayton6081 I mean we helped but the Aussies were pretty good on their own. Tbf McArthur was a jackass and not only minimized their actions but left them to dry a few times. But hey, it's what happens when a propaganda officer gets command over a theater of war. He probably heard theater and misunderstood. Edit: this channel actually has a great video over the Pacific theater that really shows how much work they put in and how they got screwed.

[@gafek67]

I'm a retired infantry officer in the IDF, now living in Oz. I think this is a brilliant job that you have done. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you have presented here.

[@hypohystericalhistory8133]

Thankyou my friend, I appreciate the positivity from someone who knows what they are talking about. I hope you are enjoying life in Australia, I had a few friends in Sydney who were ex IDF.

[@sugarnads]

🇭🇲🇮🇱❤️

[@chuckhooks6621]

By far the best analysis. I would add that two Australian F-35B carriers would enable the formation of a joint Aus-US battlegroup consisting of one of the USS Wasp or America-class F-35B carriers and one of the Australian F-35B carriers.

[@chrispsackett]

@@chuckhooks6621 Hell the US could just use the LHD's as temporary carriers. Shuttle them between RAN and Japanese Navy carriers depending on where they're needed.

[@goodputin4324]

What's a Zionist doing in Oz? Shame on you for bombing Gaza

[@ZacParsonsComedy]

As a Canadian I'm really jealous of your navy. You guys do so much right in terms of procurement, the Australian navy is everything a small nation navy should be.

[@GARDENER42]

Apart from the submarine debacle...

[@ZacParsonsComedy]

@@GARDENER42 Still better than our submarine debacle

[@goodputin4324]

Oz is not a small nation lol

[@alanbstard4]

actually our defence boffins ruin everything. Always wanting US combat systems when it's not native to ship. Blows out costs and ruins everything

[@alanbstard4]

@@ZacParsonsComedy well, unless we get out of our sub debacle, we're up for $200billion for 12 subs

[@sarcasmo57]

Another well though out and presented video my dude. I say buy that third carrier, and 12 additional F35-Bs on top of the RAAF's F35-A order.

[@sniper.93c14]

buy 36 so you can have spares and a spare squadron on land as well for training etc.

[@kizzjd9578]

Do you realise they ordered the f35 jsf back in 2006? Order more now, we get them in 14yrs time.

[@russellmiles2861]

So what would you get rid of to pay for this? Half the submarines, the armies armoured element; and if you have more funds why would make this the priority. The armed services are acutely short of medical services. Without which no units can deploy anywhere? The RAN has insufficient marine engineers for its current force. We do have more admirals than warships and a couple of battalions worth of Captains and majors. Maybe cull the forces of the dead wood and recruit some young sailors so the ships are adequately crewed.

[@kizzjd9578]

@@russellmiles2861 the civi security at raaf base townsville for a start 😂

[@garry19681]

@@russellmiles2861 cut the deadwood

[@jonreay-young9915]

Excellent video. I think order another LHD (L03) with dual capability + Upgrade the L01 & L02 to dual capability + Order an additional 12 F35B's (or more) that can be used on any of the LHD's if need be. (Remember we can always assist our allied countries as well with their F35B's if need be if we have the dual capability on all 3 LHD's).

[@bartandaelus359]

At the very least I think Australia would benefit greatly by fielding even one Canberra Class outfitted with the F-35b infrastructure to serve as a dedicated flagship. Having that capability would provide enormous flexibility to our forces and if loaned further craft from our allies in the UK or US all 3 could serve as a very potent strike force. With Chouls due to be decommissioned soon, replacing it with another Canberra class outfitted specifically to be our best version of it would be the best option by far. The Canberra and Adelaide have had more than a few mechanical problems but a 3rd ship should be able to get around those issues and (hopefully) endear us to our allies who perhaps look down on Australia not quite carrying it's weight in the region diplomatically speaking under successful Liberal governments. Moving forward this new carrier with a strike capability would dissuade any of our small Pacific neighbours and friends of the notion that we can't protect them, because we can and will, if we have this capability.

[@kparker2430]

Well done (again). I've said it before, this is your niche. Only a military historian would have the skill set to interpret the data and present the information to an audience thriving on it, as you do. The video narration and production is superb. You are the Bill Bryson of Contemporary Military History, please keep up the work in providing the public with an interpretation of strategic movements behind the policies and how these relate to hardware acquisitions and defense direction.

[@BenDaviesHe3]

Well said

[@andrewtreloar7389]

A well thought out, researched and presented discussion. There is a lot to be said for the F35B on the Canberra's including maritime interdiction, area denial, force multiplication and force projection.

[@garynew9637]

I think f 35b s are show ponies. Where are they going to be used?

[@f1b0nacc1sequence7]

This was an outstandingly reasoned, rational analysis. I am no fan of the F-35B (a horrible choice that has led to a 'poisoning' of the design process for the F-35 series as a whole), but you have made the best and most intelligent case for it that I have seen yet. Please do keep up the excellent work.

[@demun6065]

Australia could always snap up all the harriers being retired the world over, use some for spare parts etc. And have a massive Harriet air wing Seems like such a waste of a vtol aircraft

[@richardwood9177]

Not a bad idea but having the B limits logistics of part, maintenance requirements and the like. Especially when you consider how many nations are switching to the F35B, a 5th gen fighter, and how old the Harrier is.

[@patrickjames8050]

Absolutely the best channel with the best analysis I have yet seen on Military Equipment and all that it entails. Bravo Zulu sir. Love to see Australia getting serious about its own defense and commitment to its allies.

[@chrisf5462]

Thankyou for your carefully reasoned analysis and elegant summary of what is a very complex topic. It is obvious you put a heap of effort into this video.

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

~50:00 it seems hard to sustain the argument that the raaf would be weakened by the acquisition of f35Bs, as opposed to more f35As, given that the lose in range is immediately overcome by the ability to park a squadron on a flat top adjacent to the field of operations. 7.5g rated airframes are just as capable as 9g airframes in the real world of strike fighters: no one dogfights anymore - especially up to 9gs. Having a smaller internal payload is not great issue: they can still go into ‘beast mode’ like the other F35s if required. But - as you have pointed out - their individual payloads are not particularly relevant: they can team with the combined arsenal of a AWD for the firepower required for any mission.

[@philmills4473]

I would saying Australia were to go down the route of F35B, the options to upgrade Canberra class is one option but I personally would rate two or three Trieste type carriers.

[@philmills4473]

I would saying Australia were to go down the route of F35B, the options to upgrade Canberra class is one option but I personally would rate two or three Trieste type carriers.

[@s353136]

And while upgrading the Canberra class ships, give them some capacity to also send missiles which the F35’s could direct to targets.

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

@@s353136 I’d have to disagree: that’s what the escorting Hobart class AWD’s and in future the Hunter Class frigates will do. So, the capability is as you suggest, but its a different platform that ‘fusion’ will allow the F35B to ‘quarterback’. Exactly how the F35Bs flying off American LHD’s will quarterback the Airleigh Burke Destroyers.

[@tommiterava5955]

Extremely good content! Greetings from Finland!

[@nathan-ck3je]

It can support a few f35B as a emergency land and take of. But the Carrier can't support a fleet of them. It was designed for the Army not for the air force

[@ReHerakhte]

I truly hope you have been able to bring this examination of the topic to the people who will make the decision, they really need to see a rational, well thought-out and reasoned presentation of an F-35B option and it seems pretty clear they are not getting it from the organizations that are supposed to provide it.

[@glenn9229]

i can assure you HHH's videos are front and centre in the ADF/Defence planning offices. They have been used to educate new ministers and organisational heads as well as provide a bunch of meat on a number or program bones. His study of the new submarine proposals as a lesson of the past classes was particularly well received. Sadly, it takes more than good analysis to chew the elephant....but it certainly helps

[@BenDaviesHe3]

@@glenn9229 awesome if true

[@gaxbarnes]

A very well presented argument giving good strategic logic. I used to work with 816 Squadron (as a civi) and used to hear all the stories from the old guys who served when Australian naval aviation had a fixed wing component, lamenting its loss. The main reason I came to understand why it has never been officially considered as an option was not so much the strategic argument, but rather the political message it would send. Possessing a force projection capability like that sends an undesirable message to all our trading partner "friends" in our region. I always wondered if it was an option "unofficially" considered by Australian leadership, just waiting for the right time to become official. Who knows with the events of the last 12 months, that time might be close.

[@tacitdionysus3220]

Interesting, intelligent and (at times) delightfully diplomatic. A great contribution to the debate/discussion.

[@Andy81ish]

Love the fact that you provided reasons not to get the F35B, i.e. less capable to for the RAAF when not on naval ship, I'd never thought about that. Good work.

[@georgepantazis141]

f35b Capable of different things short take of on desert strips all around Australia.🇭🇲f35a airport.runways only.

[@Andy81ish]

@@georgepantazis141 I would think that the possibility of FOD damage to these high tolerance machines would limit them to deployment from sealed pavements only. Still, I would think 2 squadrons of F35A's for long range missions and 1 Squadron of F35B's with associated support gear optimized to deploy to LHD's or small regional air fields (Think Horn Island near Thursday Island) would be a good balance.

[@advancingaustralia2913]

I've been looking forward to this!

[@kcharles8857]

Same here!

[@edwardweeden2834]

Excellent take and channel. Spent many years as a 'birdfarmer' in the USN (PacFlt). Workstation billet was 'Command Classified Materials Custodian', and Battle Station billet was 'Bridge, Air Defence Circuit Captain'. Two minor points. Someone in these comments said "...no one dogfights anymore..." I would add only one word to the end of this statement - the word 'yet'. We learned the hard way about this in Vietnam. History has a funny way of sneaking up on you and biting you in the rear end! Second point is about the concept and name of 'carrier'...its role too. Equivalence in the USN of the Canberra Class would obviously be our 8 LHDs and 4 LHAs. Carry on with your research on THEIR capabilities and roles and you will see exactly what the futures of the Canberra, Adelaide and their successors in class will be.

[@johnnyb1368]

One of the best military analysis video ever. Clear, informative and well presented, great stuff! 👍👍

[@robshannon6637]

Exceptional video and very well researched. This indeed should be seen by the ADF.

[@scottsauritch3216]

This is what iv'e been saying from the jump... Any/all US/NATO Allies already approved for f35 sales and happen to possess LHD's, Congradulations! You now have an carrier air-wing! Albeit small, but incredibly deadly!

[@seffundoos]

Excellent video and really articulates the feelings of many Australians. Seems like a must have capability for our combined forces in the future battle spaces.

[@bartandaelus359]

That's a very reasonable way to articulate the point. Even if we don't procure any 35b aircraft we could at the very least modify Canberra and Adelaide to accommodate them should out allies require that capability in a conflict in the region. I'm sure US and UK airmen would feel quite at home deploying sorties from an Australian light carrier after all. The ships are already PERFECT for the role, we just need to do the last 2% of the work to make it possible. When Chouls is retired I see a 3rd LHD designed with this capacity in mind, even if we don't field it with 35b's, it should certainly have a capacity to launch them from day 1.

[@hornet6163]

This indeed does put a smile on my face

[@hgf334]

When it comes to defence, well Australia needs more of everything. A huge investment into developing a long range land based missile system is critical. Desperately needed are more destroyers to defend our northern approaches along with an interim undersea capability like the Orca program the United States are invested in. We cannot wait until the mid 2030's for a paltry dozen submarines to be built. We need to think big and vastly expand our air, naval and land units.

[@fr0stmourn3]

Vote Labor then because they're the only ones seriously talking to experts and not lobbyist about regional capability and sovereignty.

[@hgf334]

@@fr0stmourn3, well what puzzles me is the ludicrous amount the Liberals are going to make Australians pay for a dozen new Barracuda Attack submarines. It costs $1.32 billion Euros for the French to build their own Nuclear Barracuda Class Submarine whch at the time of me typing equates to almost $2.1 billion Australian dollars. So why are we having to pay almost $90 billion AUD for 12 of them when ours will not even be nuclear powered?

[@ScaryMedic86]

@@hgf334 becuase we were stupid enough to ask for a complete redesign of an of the shelf item. Never in history has there been a redesign of a Nuclear powered sub to a deseil powered one. If the ADF want a deseil boat then buy an of the shelf one that is designed as one or go for a Collins Class Ii

[@abatesnz]

@@hgf334 Because they won't be nuclear. Everything is nuclear in France, and its EdF foreign subsidiaries.

[@hgf334]

@@ScaryMedic86 Agreed, we could for that amount build or purchase 24 diesel submarines.

[@sugarnads]

A third ship, as a dedicated fighter carrier. Load 20 odd. They can still use the other ships to refuel/rearm if needed. Have 4 on each of the other 2 ships as a CAP giving 28 ish advanced front line fighters.

[@philmills4473]

2-4,Trieste type would compliment the RAN quite well I think .

[@trevormoffat4054]

And some loyal wingman drones

[@s353136]

Yes! A Queen Elizabeth type. 👍 (Nuclear powered now 😉)

[@jamieclinnick8086]

Another excellent video mate. Thoroughly researched and reasoned. Well done, much appreciated.

[@ronniefarnsworth6465]

Get onboard and make the upgrades to the LHDs for F35B and much more self defense systems like ESSM, RAM and 20mm CIWS like the USN And remember our great American Allies would be happy to deploy their many F35B on our ships !! The Chicoms are not going away and getting stronger each day, Open your eyes ADF !!!

[@captaron]

+ a cross decking capability and would be a huge benefit for our allies. Even Japan

[@jeremyandmichelledevereux2756]

Great vids mate. You are setting a new standard of research and information display.

[@garyhankinson5695]

As others have stated your research is second to none. You bring up some very positive theory’s on why we should have F35B capability on these ships. Maybe our ADF should watch your channel lol. I think the main reason they were not considered was probably cost. Great video! Cheers!

[@Albertkallal]

True, but they would not be starting from zero or scratch. Same goes for JUST buying a F35. But since they are flying F35's, then adopting "some" B models would not be the end of the world. That ship could start flying B models tomorrow if they HAD to. As noted, the ship not really setup for higher tempo air operations - but flying F35's could occur right now if they had the need.

[@advancingaustralia2913]

Really enjoy your channel, one of the most important on KZbin from an Australian perspective. Just a point of confusion; does the Canberra class have both fore and aft lifts to support deck operations? Perhaps consideration could also be given to acquiring 2 more Canberra types in a light carrier configuration when replacing the soon to be retired dock ship? Many thanks for your detailed journalism, far more detailed than legacy media. Kudos to you.

[@francisbolster772]

It has forward and aft lifts, as well as a smaller weapons lift next to the forward lift

[@advancingaustralia2913]

@@francisbolster772 thanks for the reply mate.

[@gregs7562]

Don't think you'll be replacing the Bay class anytime soon. You haven't had it that long. Stupid decision by the UK coalition govt to bin it.

[@michaelludlow6683]

Great analysis of the situation. One thing missed though is that the F35 is about twice as heavy as a AV8 and may require the strengthening of the flight deck and its supports, in any upgrade.

[@Rusty_Gold85]

therefore throwing extra pressure on the power train and engines of the ship and speed she was designed for

[@oriolguerrero1702]

@@Rusty_Gold85 Late reply but the reference report of the Spanish Armada bureau of aquisitions defines the conversion work to operate the F-35B as less than 2.000 tonnes, given that this is a 26.000 tonn vessel plus the added weight of fuel, ammo, suplies and vehicles id say 2.000 tonnes is an acceptable difference and wouldnt be an issue with the straining on the power train and engines. Id encourage to do some research, cheers

[@KB4QAA]

@@Rusty_Gold85 Well, no. Ships don't work like that. Water is fluid and doesn't change the force on the drive train.

[@jamesr8473]

The US amphibious ships needed to be treated to stop holes being burnt into them

[@eyesofisabelofficial]

Look how the RN have successfully integrated the F-35b with RAF 617 Sqn and USMC VMFA 211aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth. I'm now completely behind the F-35b. Many compared it directly to the F16 and slated it's lack lustre air to air performance accordingly, but as you have so eloquently pointed out, it's networking capabilities are truly 21st century and it's 'AWAC' features alone multiply the surface fleets fighting range. Also, it's ability to take out mid course guidance aircraft is certainly a game changer in the often trotted out "carriers are easy pray for saturation missile attack" argument. Your analysis of the hypothetical long range CAP over a task group compared to having those assets on-board is also most prescient.

[@PeterThorley]

Excellent well researched and presented video essay.

[@theoracle3837]

hey mate love the videos! Request/Recommendation: can you do a video of what you think the next large scale conflict could be and how it would play out, also what part(s) would Australia play?

[@brandonhernandez116]

Wow! If you’re looking for well researched and well presented content this is the channel to be at! Thank you for providing us with so much great content!

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

~12:30 - the ADF study done at the request of then PM Abbott into the suitability of the Canberra class and F35B operations found that it could cost 1 billion dollars for both ships to be upgraded to sustain extended F35B operations at a squadron level (ie 12 embarked planes)- according to media leaks (sounds like someone within DoD was trying to hose down Abbott’s enthusiasms before the 2015 White Paper as that cost seems to be rather inflated). That cost included resurfacing the flight deck, reconfiguring the internal bulkheads and spaces back to the Jan Carlos design, extra munitions stores and lifts, aviation (as opposed to helicopter) fuel stores, extra refueling lines and an upgrade to the giraffe radar. In my view that would be worth doing as part of a mid life upgrade starting in around 2026 - with the ADF starting a 5 to 6 year long acquisition program of the F35B in 2023/4 - once all of the F35A’s have been acquired and achieve full operational capabilities.

[@hypohystericalhistory8133]

Do you have a link?

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

@@hypohystericalhistory8133 I’m relying upon my memory of news reports back in 2015. It may be that it’s the same info recycled by ASPI.

[@hypohystericalhistory8133]

@@andrewmetcalfe9898 That’s the thing, there's nothing official in the public domain. At least nothing I could find. Gong from memory, what happened was someone from defence "backgrounded" this to the financial review, saying that Abbott had asked about it and defence had concluded it was all too expensive. But even if that report was done, if we can’t see it we can’t verify it. We don’t know what assumptions they were making, what their fundamental concept was, where their cost estimates came from. For example, you mentioned changing the fuel from “helicopter” to “fighter”, what does that mean exactly? Specifically, what systems need to be upgraded? Is it just the fuel delivery system or do they mean enlarging the bunkers? If they want to enlarge the bunkers do they really need to? Is there a major difference in bunker sizes between JC1 and Canberra? As far as I can tell the differences are minor, but obviously without the information we can’t be sure. Same thing for moving the bulkheads: which ones; where; what for; is this really necessary to sustain the concept; where did the cost estimates come from? I honestly don’t understand all the secrecy surrounding this. This kind of information would pose no security risk at all. But without access to the basic information it just allows people to dominate the narrative, and half the time they might have their own reasons for not wanting to do something like this.

[@andrewwarcup684]

I have also read about this. The cost quoted was by Defence at Russell, as they have fought tooth and nail to prevent the return of fixed wing aviation to the navy. Only Abbott was keen, no other Prime Minister or Defence minister have had the guts to take on Defense.

[@ThaFunkster100]

Interesting and very informative as always. I have been wating for you to release your video, cant wait for the next one! By the way, I ask again for you Q&A videos, do you think NZ is pulling its weight militarily or do you think they are due to start investing more in their military as Australia is doing?

[@gffhvfhjvf4959]

This is the most thorough and convincing military analysis video I've seen.

[@crunchytheclown9694]

That post alone was worthy of a sub, i look forward to watching more

[@vikingbear1487]

Wow - thanks so much - great video. I’ve always thought it was obvious to put F35B’s on our LHD’s. But as you say there is much opposition. Thanks for making this video. Hopefully it will help to reinvigorate the debate. Oh and I think I read somewhere that the deck needs to be reinforced to take the weight of the F35B.

[@Albertkallal]

the weight issue? Well, those decks can handle v22's. They can hit up to 30,000 lbs, and thus are in a similar class and range of the F35 B (30,000 lbs). And the Seahawks choppers do top out in the 22,000 lbs range. So the decks seem to be able to handle quite a variety of equipment. I mean, those choppers or F35 landing on decks? Well, they have what 3 or 4 TINY wheels that hold up the weight of the chopper or the jet. Spain, Italy ships I think are based on a similar designed decks? And they both are running F35B's, or plan too. The upgrades for the Italy ship were just completed - and they just slopped on better heat paint - the decks were not replaced. And the USA ships? They also did not replace the decks, nor even the deck plates. They like Italy just slopped on a bucket of better heat treated paint. To be fair, they did add a new extra brackets (braces) on spots 7 and 9 below deck - but that was really a shortcoming in the original design anyway. The top decks, and deck plating was not changed - only really added that better bucket of paint.

[@glennpettersson9002]

I am surprised that the ADF would be so rigid in their strategic and tactical thinking. I would hope that they are all around the potential of these ships. It is my sincere hope that they rust in peace.

[@andrewsmall6834]

Just how our command always is, they always react after the fact.

[@noname-nd8ec]

A moron would not train for the unplanned and unexpected, such as launching and landing F35b,s. But moronic can regularly used to describe military leadership.

[@derekpolyak4885]

Especially for a country that used to have 2 aircraft carriers that operated for 30 years and during a high tempo high intensity period too.

[@captaron]

We don’t have the budget of other countries. We are luckily to have what we’ve already got

[@kingofaesthetics9407]

Modern ADF leadership has always been way too rigid and way too unambitious. The organisation is currently too top heavy with useless officers and it shows.

[@kelly916]

Great work m8 very informative. Keep up the good work subscribed well done

[@johnkatsantonis-galea1885]

Love the video's, keep up the great work!

[@joseluisgarciafernandez5550]

Nice and very interesting video!. Greetings from Spain.

[@seavee2000]

Good arguments. The navy of any nation is always better off with its own air defence rather than relying on others,no matter how good or well intentioned .

[@SurvivethePoleShift]

I remember reading an Article in [I think the Defence Journal] at the time the then Labor Gubment had just negotiated the contract with Spain....The Labor Defence Minister, catagorically repudiated all elements in the Aus LHD and they were to be NOT built with the Magazines, Fuel, Squadron requirements of a Fixed Wing capability....they were very proud of themselves having done so, as it substantially [?] 'reduced' the cost of our two LHD's.....The Navy well knows the advantages of a CAP over a Taskgroup....and the abilities of the F-35 are breathtaking vis a vee, it's sensor suite.

[@billotto602]

I never had the honor to come to your country or serve with your military, but from my studies of WW2 PTO, I have the utmost respect for the Aussies. God bless you folks ! And g'day mate ! 😊😊😊 🫡 🇦🇺 🇺🇸

[@wrxer79]

This is an awesome detailed video, feel free to cover other assets in the world. I really enjoy your technical analysis as they don't include the usual rehashed marketing or propaganda other KZbin channels tend to chuck in. You can tell with your independent fact checking and admissions on how you came to your conclusions it is very thought out. Keep em coming as really enjoy hearing you counter all the mis information that gets picked up by other KZbin channels

[@tom4115]

I'm on board 100%. Based on my significant military knowledge from watching youtube videos: We need to do this.

[@AK-ky3ou]

Lol

[@adamcottrell6454]

Very well researched & presented. You have a new subscriber here 👍

[@mitzyismad]

Well presented and summarised. Quite right to say that the ADF is not as forthcoming with information as most Australians would wish. Given the sheer size of our coastline, it beggars the imagination that we no longer possess air protection for our Naval Forces.

[@ranwest2213]

What a great deep dive into this topic! Would love to hear your thoughts on the US first fleet being possibly recreated and based in Australia. There was some talk a few months ago.

[@peterprovenzano9039]

Do you have a link? I’ve never heard of this

[@malcolmcaden1440]

I’m Australian army and know of this yes they will be

[@davidrossi1486]

I think this is very close. Possessing super carrier performance this sort of arrangement would be extremely advantageous to the Indian Pacific security forces. Other options such as leaseback simply wouldn’t be possible politically or financially in Australia. But since our systems are fully compliant with the Aegis systems, integration would not be overly onerous. The Indian Pacific region drastically needs this sort of fire power particularly in the areas of air to sea and sea to sea fully operational ordinance and delivery platforms. Coordination and operational integrity between all of those nations in the Indian Pacific must be quickly and efficiently established.

[@BOBO-ut3mn]

Its between Australia and Singapore If the US Navy reactivates the First Fleet.

[@TheMelbournelad]

Yep upgraded LHD be good, call it LHD+. Ideally some kind of assault carrier should be the the goal. Able to preform its LHD role and land troops but also handle a wing of F35bs at least and throw in a vertical missile cell next to the ski jump.

[@DeltaV3]

This is top notch stuff. Bravo. 👏

[@peterryan7340]

Amazingly informative presentation 👏

[@rossblandford7558]

Excellent video, detailed and articulate- well done!. I hope they do go with the option of making raaf deployable on Canberra. I'm sure it's possible to economically upgrade the ship, our own hms ocean lhd was a converted commercial ship & it served us well! Just don't get the French to convert it (like your subs), it may take 15 years! 😀

[@gregs7562]

RFA Argus is a converted commercial ship. HMS Ocean was essentially the same as the Invincible class minus the ramp but simplified inside with more commercial spec when building. It wasn't a commercial conversion.

[@tamascalderwood729]

I hope Peter Dutton watches this video. I absolutely agree with the thesis. Great stuff.

[@xenophagia]

Excellent video! Just found your channel recently and have very much been enjoying it. Multirole vessel + 5th gen multirole fighter sounds like a solid idea to me, considering everything you've laid out in this video is correct 💪. It would open up countless possibilities, and increase the capabilities of the ADF. Spain and UK are good examples. F35B would definitely be something you'd want to have in your toolbox if war with China is a looming possibility. It would likely act as deterrent to them, as well. Considering your proximity to the South China Sea, I think having this capability is a no-brainer. In a conflict with China, Australia would be at the forefront. Having a naval/amphibious F-35B FOB capability would be critical for Australia and the Western Alliance as a whole, and could (likely imo) change the course of said conflict. A very common sense statement made in this video and one I very much agree with. *EDIT:* To be clear: Yes, I am American, and no... To me, this is not about my country making more money from the sale of more F-35s'. Actually, there are some nations that I would rather my country not even consider selling the F35 to. However, I do think it's a smart move for our close allies to have the F-35, as they are genuinely the best option and it makes us stronger as a whole. Also: Yes, I'm aware that Australia has the F-35A. Just thought I'd shut that down in advance, because I've had that absurd "argument" thrown at me in the comments regarding the F35 before.

[@bertjilk3456]

As the recent submarine decision showed, our priorities have changed. Japan has upgraded their helicopter carriers for f-35b, and we should too.They have similar upgrade needs (deck coatings, magazines, etc) are not costing anywhere near $500 million (I think a figure of $30 million per vessel was mentioned elsewhere). With current military thinking revolving around distributed operations, allied forces need as many aircraft launching points as possible. Another 2 from Australia would certainly be very welcome. The defence of the Australian mainland is not the scenario that planners should be thinking about. A multi-nation operation in defence of Taiwan is the more realistic eventuality that we could face in the medium term. In that context, our LHDs would contribute a lot more to the effort acting as light carriers with F-35bs.

[@jakerubino3233]

Nice analysis bro. Now just to learn pronunciation on the word Juan! 😉😂 Keep up the good work! 👌🏻

[@joemaloney1019]

Thank you for a well thought out position on the feasibility of using f35bs on the Australian helicopter assault docks, turning them into miniature sea control carriers. I had always assumed that they were too small to sustain that type of operation. But you can definitely see an opportunity presenting itself. Not just an opportunity but a scalable one, the ADF is already working with the USMC regarding amphibious operations, why not invite them to put together a design proposal regarding modifications to permit f35b operations. You could even invite them onboard to implement the proposal using their f35bs. Afterall didn't they deploy onboard the HMS QE recently? It would save on r & d costs and this new mutual defense agreement should be worth something and they would be using their airplanes. Costs would be low for the ADF and the Americans can justify their costs to their own tax payers. And if the USMC proves the concept the ADF can place the order.

[@gusgone4527]

An excellent video. I subscribed on the strength of it.

Excellent Video. After reading "sharky" Wards book on his Experiences in the Falklands war with the Harrier, i find it particulary interesting that the F35 can replicate the capabilities of an AWACS, because the lack of such a system was a mayor porblem for the british according to him in the falklands campaigne.

[@gusgone4527]

If The Aussie RAN and RAAF want to take part in joint operations with nations that operate F35B. Being able to accommodate some cross decking of air assets would be beneficial if not completely game changing.

[@grisall]

That's an interesting pov that wasn't discussed. I believe I read that a local (western Pacific) navy designed their next carrier to be compatible with U.S.N. F-35s so if in a pinch they could invite US aircraft to operate off their carrier. The US has operated off the UKs new carrier and the UK has operated off US carriers even before the F35. It is reasonable to assume that Australia, UK, US, Japan and possibly other Navy's will be able supply aircraft to one another even if they cant send a super carrier task Force at the moment

[@gusgone4527]

@@grisall Anything that increases tactical options is a good idea. Interoperability between allies should not need to be suggested by KZbin commenters. It should be a fundamental principle. Go AUKUS! A huge step in the right direction. Now we wait for CA and NZ to catch up.

[@grisall]

@@gusgone4527 Too bad it wasn't a fundamental principal for those US forces on the ground in the desert for Carter's Iran hostage rescue attempt - It was the lack of interoperability between U.S. Forces only that caused that debacle

[@CaptainBango]

Brilliant video essay, well researched and presented.

[@MisteriosGloriosos922]

*Interesting, Thanks for informative vid!!!*

[@dalkeithhuskarl9351]

Are the Canberra class suitable for launching drones, particularly ghost-bat drones? They may have a secondary use as a drone carrier as opposed to retrofitting for F35Bs. The suggestion of two additional Canberra class custom built for F35Bs seems like a good investment.

[@shackvan]

Also one for the plus column, at least some F-35B's in the fleet gives the RAAF a very flexible expeditionary air wing. To continue your Falklands capability comparison harriers flying from the carriers were able to refuel and re-arm from what was basically a helicopter FOB on the Island to drastically increase time on station once that beachhead was secure. Likewise once the Islands were full recaptured Harriers were the only fighters able to fly air defence from the short runway at Stanley until it was lengthened for RAF Phantoms.

[@amsuther]

Or the ability to operate from smaller austere strips on the mainland or the islands such as Cocos, Norfolk etc.. away from the established bases and hidden away.

[@KB4QAA]

Shackvan: The carriers were designed to operate with Harriers aboard. The Falklands operation did not require any changes.

[@solowingborders3239]

It'd be awesome to see F-35Bs in 805 Squadron Royal Australian Navy.

[@Semajsenrab72]

Won't happen, they need a major and very expensive refut

[@Albertkallal]

@@Semajsenrab72 Well, both the Italy ship, USA ships and the Spain one did not really need any huge upgrades. In these 3 examples? All they did was slop on the decks some better heat treated paint. The F35 B puts down less temperatures then the Harrier does anyway. As I pointed out, say you going to buy 60 A models. (77 million last quoted batch). The B model is 100 million. So, you can buy say 12 B models, and drop out 3 jets (3 x 77 = 230 million). So in place of 60 jets, you now get 77 jets (10 B models, and 47 A models). Same price. Heck, drop one more A model, and now you have 12 B models. So you only give up say 3 or 4 F35 purchases here. In place of 60 jets, you get 57 or 56 jets in total but you now have 12 B models. All for the same price. Simply slop on that bucket of better heat paint on the decks like USA, Italy and Spain did, and you in business flying B models off Cambria's decks. USA, Spain, and Itatly did NOT replace the deck plates - only slopped on that bucket of better paint. And you not broke the budget, or in fact really increased your purchase cost of jets - you just give up 3 A models to achieve this goal. The changes to the ship are overblown. The Italy and Spain ships are VERY similar design (in fact they all are based on the same design I think).

[@Semajsenrab72]

The Aust LHD's need the modifications, not the planes. They lack the radar required for ship Bourne fast hey air ops, the gov of the day ordered the cheapest variant possible, to run any jet would need to probably buy a ship built and dedicated to it, and no ship is going in to combat or danger areas with only 3 or 4 planes, any defects could have or wipe out all aircraft, us training models would be needed

[@Albertkallal]

@@Semajsenrab72 Not really convinced that some huge ship radar system upgrade would be required. I mean, that ship does not have any half decent radar system now? And how much cost would be a new radar system? Can't be much if any more cost then one fighter jet - maybe two tops? So if a radar upgrade is holding this back - that's not all that hard of a problem to address. F35's flying would and could extend such radar systems far beyond what just the ship has anyway.

[@Semajsenrab72]

@@Albertkallal I know it is needed. Deck requires strengthening, ammo lifts etc. Alot of work.

[@patcleaver3081]

Obtaining two small carriers with 5th generation aircraft for only 1-billion dollars is an amazing deal. Even more amazing is that the carriers can act as landing craft docks when needed. Just promise to buy the air force another 24 F-35As in a couple of years.

[@Birch37]

Fantastic summation

[@camf7522]

It would make sense for such large naval assets to have organic fighter defense. The RAAF would struggle to provide air superiority around a deployed LHD.

[@zenonsplawinski9436]

F35B is only inferior to the F35A for the RAAF if it’s air bases are intact. With Australia’s lack of a heavyweight SAM capability this is a somewhat tenuous assumption.

[@douglasnakamura6753]

Very intelligent and non-biased video. Where are all the f35b-on-the-Canberra-Class haters in this comment section?

[@jamesg2382]

Wow, this is really an excellent analysis. Really well done, thank you. I hope our defence forces are looking at this seriously.

[@daylewilson7969]

If the LHDs were to truly be deployed for amphibious warfare as designed, having a fixed wing capability on hand to assist in fire suppression + creating a beach head would be a huge benefit to the amphibious operation. Both with strike missions and air superiority. They would essentially protect the amphibious force and help remove any intial resistance and make them a far more effective capability.

[@supertouring1]

I've been itching to say this, but you beat me to it. A squadron of F35bs would give the amphibious force an additional layer of protection. There are so many lives and equipment at stake. Since you have the ship and the planes are available for purchase, this capability is like a must.

[@wester42]

Do you think it could be worth more to Australia to develop a third Canberra class ship specifically to launch f35bs or spread the capability out across the 2-3 lhds we have and also as the regional threat rises should a Australia seriously consider having its own dedicated carrier force?

[@bartandaelus359]

A year late but personally I think that the flexibility of a single fighter wing of F35b craft would dramatically improve our military's capability even in a simple recon ability. Apart from that there are tiny airstrips all over the Pacific neighbours we would be fighting along side and on Norfolk island etc that are suitable for the 35b but not a Super Hornet or 35a. Ultimately it gives us an enormous amount of flexibility and at the very least we should prepare our current LHD Canberra class vessels to accommodate this capacity. In the event of a war in he south Pacific, having that flexibility is an invaluable asset.

[@andrewrussell4070]

Excellent analysis mate!

[@MrPhil360]

I like the stormtrooper on the gunners window 16:26 .

[@jimmymifsud1]

Also another though, with our development of the Loyal Wingman we could deploy a squadron of these to support the F-35B and MH-90 helicopters deployed from the Canberra Class

[@peterprovenzano9039]

The loyal wingman drone does not have short take off and landing capability

[@jimmymifsud1]

@@peterprovenzano9039 fair, i keep thinking it’s a small drone; but it’s comparable to some fighters on the market

[@marksita76]

@@peterprovenzano9039 They are presumably light enough to use the ski ramp already there and a small light arrestor system across the deck shouldn't be a major issue for normal trap landings.

[@kingofaesthetics9407]

@@marksita76 Having wire arrestor gear would be extremely dangerous without an angled flight deck. Also the flight deck of the Canberra class would also be too small and too short for it. It'd be safer, easier and more logical to modify the Loyal Wingman to have a STO/VL capability.

[@john-paulfarrell2562]

Can you make a video about the Australian defence industry???

[@richardblack3534]

Haha haha OK mate

[@thomasromanelli2561]

Take a bow, Sir. Your presentation is worthy of a GAO meeting, and provides some key insights for the laypeople who watch your channel. I particularly appreciate your reasonable skepticism regarding the risks and benefits of the F-35 platform, elements of which still plague the units deployed throughout the US armed forces and currently prevent the vehicle from fulfilling its advertised potential. Having said that, embarking on an indigenous program for manufacturing an Australian 5th generation fighter seems like a non-starter, and replacement/refurbishment of current aircraft inventory with 4th generation updates is merely kicking the can down the road while potentially introducing capability gaps in Australia's force structure. The rapid expansion of Chinese naval manufacturing and ops tempo places significant stress on the Australian military budget for reasons that you summarized, and the far-reaching implications of the subsequent strategic picture: any reasonable assumption that the RAN can rely on its allies must be tempered by the reality that the current anti-access area denial posture developed by the PLAN means that US forces will literally need to "fight to get to the fight", and then face the challenge of persistent operations in a high threat environment where the opponent retains a superior logistical advantage. Considering the potential long-lead times of materials and operational testing, billions spent now to upgrade the Canberra class may ultimately save ten-fold later, but there are also many unknowns. That is the difficult message that Australian politicians and military leaders must convey accurately and honestly to the citizens they govern.

[@narutoflute255]

this is great keep it up !

[@pilgrim....]

This is a superior video factual and thought provoking. Who would want to shoulder responsibility for a decision like this ? Whatever Oz deserves the best. I never seen a F35B look so mean as the one tied down with the under wing load out 👀😲

[@x_quinn_x9179]

I think it would be short-changing the Australian Navy to settle with conversion of a helicopter dock to use F-35Bs. It would be far better for the RAN to commission and produce a fully capable and tailored aircraft carrier design that fully fits alongside the amphibious efforts and capabilities that are being built. Not only would this fully round out the RAN forces capability, but would also build on the Australian Naval construction capabilities that have gone through massive improvement. While Australia can launch aircraft from most of its landmass, protecting Australia is best done by protecting its neighbours and a fully capable carrier would give a much better capability to do that alongside its neighbours own forces. Might be a stretch but something that sort of takes the best things of the Gerald R Ford and Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers with some extras could be a good place to start.

[@dinosaurswithlasers4930]

very interesting content and you've shown critical thinking, good job!

[@gonbal2]

The maintenance costs of two aircraft carriers with 24 fighter jets can be fully financed by Australia. Each ship could be accompanied by two frigates, a nuclear submarine and auxiliary vessels.

[@patcleaver3081]

Australia also has 2-Hobart destroyers.

[@Spectre-tv7wi]

Can you make a video on the Hobart Class Destroyers?

[@hypohystericalhistory8133]

Yeah mate It’s on the list

[@Datalore74]

Bring back HMAS Melbourne. Just purchase 2 more flat tops and use for f35b ops when required. Dedicated ships are always the best. 1.5Billion each is cheap over 35 years. Purchase 2. Purchase f35b and heli's and when the need arises put the f35b on top of them and sail.

[@Lightning_studios437]

Hmas Melbourne was scrapped, we also don’t have enough supply ships, and destroyers and frigates to guard and support four amphibious warfare/ light carrier ships

[@Datalore74]

@@Lightning_studios437 I know HMAS Melbourne was scrapped im just advising that we should build 2 more flat tops and call one Melbourne. Also with regards to not having enough ships/ supply/AWD and frigates look at HMS Queen Elizabeth. She has a mutil national fleet sailing with her. I think we can manage 2 more flat tops. It would bolster the navy and when need the F35b can take off from RAAF Base whatever and join the task force when required.

[@henryvagincourt4502]

@@Datalore74 + A group of 9 ships, 2 of which are not Royal Navy, which are 1 USN and 1 RNN.

[@Datalore74]

@@henryvagincourt4502 yeah correct. We could do that too. Increase cooperation with our partners.

[@jacklang3314]

A not so fun fact, but the HMAS Melbourne was scrapped in China and alongside a number of Russian Aircraft Carriers was studied to help the PLAN develop their own carriers.

[@AugmentedGravity]

Fantastic video. Truly

[@mcyte314]

Excellent analysis!

[@benjarongprojects]

In the current (and likely long term future) strategic environment, and with speedy deployment by the USA certainly not a given, Australia cannot overspend on our naval capability. I know there are also practical limits on Australia’s federal budget, but I’d support two light carriers, perhaps from Japan or Korea where they don’t take two decades to deliver a light carrier. And our current centres of excellence developing combat/attack, defensive and surveillance drones should have their investments doubled and accelerated. A homegrown drone design and manufacturing capability is very important.

[@Andy81ish]

Specifically need to make sure we can manufacture anything that is expendable like missiles and drones within out own borders and within our own resources.

[@aymonfoxc1442]

We are already going to be manufacturing the American's 'loyal wingman drones for use with these and other aircraft here by the sounds of things. So we will likely be purchasing those.

[@ianrobinson8974]

The Loyal Wingman is an Australian designed and manufactured here by Boeing. It is the only type of its' type in the world at this time.

[@chrispsackett]

Honestly, buying those subs from France and not Japan was a massive mistake. One that needs a royal commission to investigate. Watch this for more info kzbin.info/www/bejne/nWPZn5afp854lbM

[@michellearmstrong7903]

Don't bother with aircraft carriers,the Chinese will come to you

[@colinflenley8601]

Navantia Australia already have the plans, so build two new ones for stovl ops, or alternatively join with Japan and Sth Korea and get the US to build 3 small carriers (they have world best expertise). Manpower recruitment wouldn’t be a problem if they drop the gender ratios. I personally know of 12 young men who can’t enlist because they are the wrong gender. The cost to it all is immaterial because if China comes storming down the straights we won’t have ANYTHING anyway, great presentation by the way.

[@Blinkybills]

Very intelligent and well thought out analysis. Hopefully somebody in Canberra will have look into this. If History shows anything, they who control the high ground wins. This has been true in every conflict in the last 120 years, but especially true of WW2, where airpower and close airsupport superiority shattered the Axis ground and Naval forces. Naval forces can not makeover effectively in a high intensity conflict without organic airpower.

[@vindictive6572]

Must say very well thought through arguments! A few points: 1. Can you consider a reply video in the same tone and using the figures and costings you have come up with here? 2. While the likelihood of deploying the full Amphibious Ready Group is low, to deploy an Amphibious Ready Unit with air cover ("Autonomous Expeditionary Taskforce"?) and to sustain that group would require significant resources from the Royal Australian Navy alone. For example if you assume a 3 to 6 week deployment, noting that the Falklands as an example was a technologically superior expeditionary force up against a much older, semi-entrenched force and a modern conflict with someone *coughChinacough* would be a match up of similar technological capability leveling the playing field and potentially extending the conflict time period. To deploy the "Autonomous Expeditionary takforce" you'd require all 3 Amphibious ships, 1 to 2 resupply ships on station, 1 to 2 Anti-air destroyers on station (I say 2 for redundancy sake), 1 to 2 Frigates on station (noting that each LHD currently when at sea requires at least one Frigate with it, but assume 2 for the fleet), 1 to 2 resupply ships on escort(s), the deployment is looking at somewhere in the area of 7 ships on station and possibly a submarine or two in the area, plus 4 ships (in transit (1 supply ship loading/transiting to station + escort and 1 supply ship transiting from station + escort)). This would also note that the seaborne air wing would be tasked for either fleet defence rather than strike, with strike capability generally coming from RAAF assets at home (happy to be corrected on this point). The total establishment would be somewhere in the range of 4,000 to 5,000 personnel (Including army personnel), 10 to 12 Ships. This is a significant drain on RAN resources and would eliminate the RAN from conducting any other exercise short of loaning a single ship to an allied taskforce. Noting that in RIMPAC 2020 saw 4 ships deployed and is one of the largest deployments undertaken in recent years of RAN resources. To train to be capable of putting a 7 to 8 ship fleet plus providing ongoing support and securing sea and air channels to do such would be a considerable time in training and significant investment of resources (read as, putting a lot of eggs in one basket) for the ADF. Something to look to as a goal, but I don't believe personally if we started down this road now, such a force would be read to be deployed to Taiwan within the next 5 years, probably looking at 10 to 15. 3. A fleet movement of this size would be very obviously and easily tracked. When the F35B launches, assuming the same rule for opening weapons bays applies to the aircraft's stealth signature upon lowering of landing gear (or at take off), does this mean that the stealth capability of the F35B becomes irrelevant if the tracking can be maintained from the take off point? Either through satellite or OTHR. Further on the F35B itself, the F35 is a stand off fighter. It is not designed to dogfight. Would it be capable or able to undertake the stand-off role without a Wedgetail on site? 4. Would this kind of arrangement require No.1 Squadron to move to Sydney (RAAF Richmond) to be closer to Fleet Base East? Conventional wisdom says no as 2RAR are based in Townville, however integrating troops and landing craft is different to integrating aircraft and Seaborne air operations are different to land based operations requiring a higher level of skill and training, and redundancy in the pilots and machines. Just a thought. My outcome from the video is that the 2030 replacement for HMAS Choules should be a ship capable of internally holding a full squadron of F35B's as a multirole platform similar to the HMAS Canberra Class. Nonetheless, great video and some points for a counter video if you so choose.