I don't think the "easy refuelling radius of fighters in a combat scenario" is particularly relevant. What's the likelihood of all the long runways being rendered unusable in one go, without warning? There are six, at five locations, which could handle F-35A at maximum weight, & I think they could all operate Typhoons.
Again the F-35A has boom refueling system. The F-35B has a probe refuelling system.
The Typhoons could be refuelled by a KC-130J. The F-35A not.
This could operate from forward bases either together with F35B or link up with F35As from mainland bases.
There is no drone compatible with the F-35A.
Australia is of course a larger country with more airfields and does not have the same concerns with its airfields and aircraft exposure ,operating the shorter range f35-b from Australian runways would not be as capable as the a models
A F-35A with no tanker verse a F-35B with tanker support. Which will have the longer range?
Singapore operates 5x KC-130. Malaysia operates 4x KC130.Australia is looking at acquiring 6 x KC130.
The model the US and Japan are using for the Pacific and the SCS is a model based around austere basing and the F-35B and the KC130.
Tanker co-location. The
KC-30 has almost double the fuel offload at 1000NM range, than a KC-130J has at takeoff; so while it can be beneficial, it certainly isn’t necessary for the KC-30 to co-locate with the Fighters.
The total dump of fuel doesn't really matter, we are talking about a small flight <6 aircraft. Most likely 2 at a time. We are talking bombers, long ranged aircraft, perhaps the odd multiple refuelled fighter. We aren't fighting Fighters from mainland China. There is no point in dumping 100t of fuel into aircraft that only have ~12t of fuel capacity total. Its about spread of forces and spread of units, not mass dumping fuel.
You will need more than one. How does a ready reaction force work with a KC-30 located up to 5000km away?
Tindal to Christmas Island is 3000 km each way.
Tindal to Cocos is 4000km each way.
Tindal to Butterworth is 4,100km each way.
Tindal to Momote is 2,200km each way, in the other direction.
There are 10 x KC130 aircraft already in the region. Australia could acquire another six. That is 16 refuelling aircraft that are organic with the fighters we are trying to replace with KC30 out of Tindal.
How many KC-30 based out of Tindal would we need to cover Christmas, Cocos, Butterworth, Momote, and all the islands and areas in between? 24? 32? Even that seems thin, to replace 16 organically located aircraft, on remote strips thousands of kilometers away.
The US has some 500 aerial refuelling tankers and many global bases. Even they can't manage it, even in the SCS.
Which is why, IMO, it would be worth discussing the F-35B and KC130J concept.
The F-35A and KC30 aircraft can and will still be used. They could be used, with enough lead time, at Butterworth. They can be used at Tindal, again with time and planning and the use of a significant amount of resources. Numbers based at Butterworth could be bought up over time over several weeks.
But if the idea is to base F-35A and KC30 out of Christmas island/Cocos or Momote, no that will not happen.
If the idea is to move 72 F-35A's from Williamstown to Butterworth in a single day, or base them all out of Butterworth that also will not happen.
KC130J can also refuel other aircraft, including Eurofighter Typhoons, Superhornets, Hornets etc.
If the F-35B is too complicated, too boutique. Perhaps we should look at acquiring more Superhornets instead and disposing of our F-35A?
Logistics. The F-35B isn’t a wonder jet that requires less logistics support than an A model. Funnily enough, it needs about the same footprint as the A. It consumes the same amount of the same stuff. It needs the same support equipment to run, including to fix it when it breaks. it does however, break more often, and requires about
50% more maintenance man hours per flight hour than the F-35A.
Here is a scenario. 6 x F-35B and a 2xKC130J based at Christmas island. They need to patrol over the Sunda strait, 500km away. So ~30min flight time to get on station, they can easily be refuelled multiple times from a KC130, and stay on station several hours for a pair of fighters. Lets say 4 hrs. On a 24hr period that is 12 x F35 flights of 5hrs each.
60 F-35B flight hours.
24 KC130 flight hours (Could be less depending on how we wanted to operate).
Now lets try and do the same thing out of Tindal with the F-35A. 2,500km each way so thats 5 hrs just getting onto station. lets say an impossible 2 hrs on station then fly back home. So 2 x F-35 and 1 x KC30 every 2 hrs. So now we need 24 x F-35A flights of 7 hrs and 12 x KC30's flights of 7 hrs. Each jet is in the air for 7 hrs. So we need at least 14 x F-35A and 4 KC30 minium just for that 24hr period.
168 F-35A flight hours.
~28 KC30 flight hours (but could be less depending on how we wanted to operate).
So even if F-35B require 50% more maintenance per flight hour, you are flying 280% the flight hours. Nearly 3 times the hours.
Now can the F-35A be based at Christmas Island and the KC30 out of Butterworth? Perhaps. But its not organic. I am sure there are many flaws in my example. The example is not to show a proven situation, but to show that cost per flight hour isn't everything, and proximity is important. There are many flaws in the example above. The locations are just picked points people would be aware of. You need search and rescue aircraft for example, RAAF procedures I believe don't allow operation like this, at least in peace time. The burden is likely actually greater than shown here.
With an E7/P8 flying patrols, nearby F-35B could be called up as required and be next to them in 30 minutes. F-35A based out of Butterworth or Tindal, could take hours if they are half way between those two locations.
The idea of a F-35B is not to operate it the same way as a F-35A. It is to place it closer to front lines where its location makes it s huge force multiplier. If you operated the F-35B the same way as the F-35A you would have a more expensive, shorter ranged, less agile, smaller weapon bay F-35A. Probably something like a 85% of the capability for 120% of the cost. But this becomes blured when you look at systems, support and weapons. It is still a F-35. For many perhaps most missions, there would be no difference. F-35's and 5th generation aircraft aren't going to be making tight turns in visual range dog fighting. 5th generation aircraft are more likely to operate small, smart guided weapons that would easily fit into either a F-35B or F-35A bay. The KC130J vs the KC30 further complicates the comparison. The KC130J can be in many places the KC30 can't. The F-35B can refuel from either the KC130J or the KC30. The F-35B can be moved by ship en mass, without the enemy knowing. Have an issue with the F-35A and your options are very limited over open ocean. An issue could be a broken refuelling system, which is highly likely given the amount of that will be required in high tempo ops in a conflict situation. The F-35B has many more landing options, even in blue seawater.
We have 72 F-35A, that is a good useful, powerful force. IMO F-35B would add additional capabilities not provided by the F-35A, and would also address issues with the long term decommissioning of the F-18 Superhornets as they become less relevant as we go into the future.
The F-35A are ideal from existing large, well resourced bases, flying well scheduled ops. Making long range strikes with large weapons. Providing mass resistance and defence of high value assets and locations. They can be effectively supported by KC30 based with them, or nearby them.
The F-35B are different. They are ideal to be based at bare or austere bases. They are ideal for small, remote island airports and runways. They can be based with KC130J. KC130J can be based around the areas they are operating to provide tanker capability when required. 737 based aircraft like the E7 and P8 can also operate from the same fields as a the KC130J. The KC130J may be able to refuel 737 based aircraft on the runway from these fields with minimal fuel storage. KC130J can also allow refuelling of helicopters or some army equipment at austere bases, on the ground. At bases with mixed forces, like Typhoons (operated by the UK and Indonesia) the F-35B is a better fit, IMO.
IMO we are now getting to the point where F-35 are going to be off the table. Of any type. It may be that no F-35A or B can be acquired before 2030, now. At which point this discussion may be pointless and we may need to consider additional F-18 Super hornets.
