A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[Seaforth]

what i was trying to say was you could have a new carrier and 10 new subs... if the unit cost of F35A goes past 110m each (thats a big if) you could trade 15 F35A for 30 F18 E/F (still second most capable carrier A/C). or a mix of F35C and F18 E/F.

Sure, but I don't think that 12 subs are realistic (no funding for a start)... so let's not be greedy.

Now if Defence was to say 6 new subs + CATOBAR QE carrier + F35C for RAAF and existing Super Hornets instead of 12 subs would:

• save $X in capex and $Y in annual opex compared to 12 new subs making the plan more affordable; and
• provide X, Y and Z new capabilities and interoperabilities; and
• create new opportunities for Foreign Affairs; and
• less risk (existing carrier, existing Super Hornet);

then they would have the beginnings of a business case... :daz

 

[Seaforth]

Future aircraft aboard Queen Elizabeth will be slightly larger and heavier than F35A; F35C model of the variant will be the main stay for the future if the RN keep her and not forced to sell both.
If by chance some unknown force prevails on the RAN and she gets a Queen Elizabeth class we are all ready half way there for a return for the FAA, F18E/F Super Hornets are carrier capable already no change’s between ours and the USN Super Hornets. An additional buy of Hornets and in the future maybe some F35C for a total of 36 fast jest and hopefully E2D Hawkeye AWACS and support helicopters.AWACS aircraft will also have the capability of in-flight refuelling from the Super hornets for longer time on station if needed.

And F35C is 51.5ft long 43 ft span max take off weight 70,000 lbs.

The old RN Buccaneer was 63.5ft long 44ft span max take off weight 62,000 lbs and operated off Victorious, Hermes, Eagle and Ark Royal - all much, much smaller than QE... so no problems operating F35C from QE.

Thanks for the info about RAAF Super Hornets - very interesting, in Australia we're better prepared in some ways for the QE class than the UK !

I would say though that interoperability and joint forces etc would mean that RAN should NOT propose a new FAA - that would be a political play that wouldn't go down well. Better to angle for a joint asset with RAAF fast jets able to deploy.

One assumes (hopes!!) that the RAN and RAAF get on much better than the RN and RAF. Certainly couldn't be worse!

 

[OpinionNoted]

subject of current discussion is feasabilty of aquiring a queen elizabeth for ran running raaf jets off not a...i think capability A is more justifiable than capablity B.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You can’t make a realistic case of submarines vs carriers on cost because of the huge disparity in through life cost even if you can equalise on non-recurring cost. If you want to buy a carrier you need to crew it. Using the yard stick of one ashore for one at sea and a three shift submarine crew that is still a disparity of 3,000 (1 carrier and air wing) versus 900 (6 three shift submarines). Also the carrier’s air wing requires a huge amount of cost to sustain. For a carrier the size of the CVF that would mean a gross force of at least 48 fast jets and 48 helicopters.

Anyway any such decision about acquiring carriers should not necessarily be made in relation to replacing existing capability. Also it would be very foolhardy for the RAN to acquire a single carrier with CTOL – catapults and arrestors – when STOVL is available. The difference in additional expense and training demand is staggering and only makes sense if all you’ve ever done is CTOL (USN) or you have a political requirement for a carrier holiday and need to merge with another pre-existing CTOL force (RN).

The RAN could acquire a carrier and air wing capability with a lead time of at least 10 years and the funding. Of course being freed from a lot of administration load – which would provide the funding – would help.

 

[SASWanabe]

subject of current discussion is feasabilty of aquiring a queen elizabeth for ran running raaf jets off not a...i think capability A is more justifiable than capablity B.

yes but we're discussing ways this hypothetical could be turned into a reality

 

[Seaforth]

You can’t make a realistic case of submarines vs carriers on cost because of the huge disparity in through life cost even if you can equalise on non-recurring cost. If you want to buy a carrier you need to crew it. Using the yard stick of one ashore for one at sea and a three shift submarine crew that is still a disparity of 3,000 (1 carrier and air wing) versus 900 (6 three shift submarines). Also the carrier’s air wing requires a huge amount of cost to sustain. For a carrier the size of the CVF that would mean a gross force of at least 48 fast jets and 48 helicopters.

Anyway any such decision about acquiring carriers should not necessarily be made in relation to replacing existing capability. Also it would be very foolhardy for the RAN to acquire a single carrier with CTOL – catapults and arrestors – when STOVL is available. The difference in additional expense and training demand is staggering and only makes sense if all you’ve ever done is CTOL (USN) or you have a political requirement for a carrier holiday and need to merge with another pre-existing CTOL force (RN).

The RAN could acquire a carrier and air wing capability with a lead time of at least 10 years and the funding. Of course being freed from a lot of administration load – which would provide the funding – would help.

Sure others know better about ramping up to CTOL v STOVL from a standing start.

However if we're talking in-plan RAAF units providing fast jets then there is no requirement for an incremental air wing. As I understand it QE needs 600 complement excluding air wing.. so the disparity would be much less than 3,000 versus 900, maybe 1,200 versus 900.

 

[Todjaeger]

Sure others know better about ramping up to CTOL v STOVL from a standing start.

However if we're talking in-plan RAAF units providing fast jets then there is no requirement for an incremental air wing. As I understand it QE needs 600 complement excluding air wing.. so the disparity would be much less than 3,000 versus 900, maybe 1,200 versus 900.

The very significant downside to using RAAF units 'as is' aboard a CV, is that deployed RAAF fastjets then reduce the total # of RAAF fastjets available elsewhere. In the case of a CV the size of the QE, the fastjet airwing would be roughly equal to half the RAAF fastjet force. That is an awful large percentage of the RAAF combat strength have have deployed away from Australia and the local region. Not to mention the possibility of a nightmare situation where the CV is a total loss, along with the embarked equipment.

If the ADF were to get a CV of some kind, it would be far better for a large percentage of the embarked fastjets be in addition to the currently planned 100 F-35. IMO it would be better if the RAAF/ADF were to get F-35C, instead of a split A/C order if CTOL ops were to be conducted. OTOH if STOL was contemplated instead, then a force of ~48 F-35B's would likely be in order.

Either way, it would be an expensive undertaking, both in initial purchase costs, but also ongoing operational costs as well.

-Cheers

 

[t68]

For a carrier the size of the CVF that would mean a gross force of at least 48 fast jets and 48 helicopters.


The RAN could acquire a carrier and air wing capability with a lead time of at least 10 years and the funding. Of course being freed from a lot of administration load – which would provide the funding – would help.

I was under the impression a QE had room only for a max of 50 aircraft and that was under wartime full load expansion. The RN had only planed for as a STOVL carrier 36 JSF plus helicopter support.

Totally agree about the lead time for a Carrier but the second has been set back till 2022 from memory, if the UK are hell bent on selling one, we have the lead time plus the time for a decision on whether to go STOVL or CATOBAR.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The black hole is between Capital and Russell Hill wasting money on stupid crap.

add in an imposed cap by govt, lack of control by sponsors, an inability to maintain scope restrictions as changes are soft sold to Cabinet and thus blessed even though change is questionably and/or warranted....

 

[gf0012-aust]

Of course being freed from a lot of administration load – which would provide the funding – would help.

I've got no idea what they release to the public, but the org analysis is not showing that costs are being "over consumed" by management at the delivery level.

where it hurts is mandated review stages where things have to be run by the committees before they hit NSC or hit the Minister. the cost and time embuggerance is ridiculous - Kinnairds process has just caused more grief in a quest to make things more efficient.

also, the Kinnaird process is entirely inapprop for some projects.

These are govt mandated processes which require cabinet and the senior executive (4 Ministers and Depts) to accept the change. Ultimately it has to be done by Cabinet. ie Defence is NOT in a position to change the delivery and review process unless the decision makers at each signature change take the hit (and its a career limiting hit to defy Cabinet.

The admin overheads are not of Def/CDG/DMO's choice, its a legacy overhead mandated from Cabinet, and in a prev form, the boss. (PM)

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The RAAF is structured to support four squadrons of strike fighters. A CVF can accommodate at least two squadrons. If the RAAF is going to be responsible under the current force structure to supply the (hypothetical) RAN CVF carrier with an air wing then that is 50% of the RAAF at sea. It’s a very different thing to deploying a RAAF squadron every now and then as a force multiplier to an existing naval carrier air wing.

Also since the air wing is now a RAAF responsibility that includes command of the carrier air wing. So how are you going to inoculate the RAAF leadership with naval mission sets and skills? That is how are you going to do so without turning them into naval officers? If you turn them into naval officers one can ask why not use original brand naval officers?

If you want a carrier then you need to build it a proper naval carrier air wing. Obviously in a smallish force like the ADF this would be done jointly with the RAAF in individual training and logistics but it would be far better to make the air wing naval.

If the ADF were to get a CV of some kind, it would be far better for a large percentage of the embarked fastjets be in addition to the currently planned 100 F-35. IMO it would be better if the RAAF/ADF were to get F-35C, instead of a split A/C order if CTOL ops were to be conducted. OTOH if STOL was contemplated instead, then a force of ~48 F-35B's would likely be in order.

The disadvantages of this would be many especially considering that the advantages in logistics and training would also be available in a customised force of F-35As for the RAAF and F-35Bs or F-35Cs for the RAN. The F-35C’s advantages are mostly on paper as soon as you take them away from needing to land on the back of a supercarrier. For example in range they burn more fuel because of the drag of the bigger wing so you are flying IFR missions they are quite a handicap.

 

[Seaforth]

The RAAF is structured to support four squadrons of strike fighters. A CVF can accommodate at least two squadrons. If the RAAF is going to be responsible under the current force structure to supply the (hypothetical) RAN CVF carrier with an air wing then that is 50% of the RAAF at sea. It’s a very different thing to deploying a RAAF squadron every now and then as a force multiplier to an existing naval carrier air wing.

Following your rationale perhaps the solution would be a single squadron operating a dozen RAN FAA aircraft (whether F35B, F35C or Super Hornets) forming the core of the carrier's air group. (All lead in training and support would need to be provided by RAAF to avoid duplication of the support organisation). It must be said that the same type as operated by the RAAF would be much more efficient than say F35A by the RAAF and F35B by the FAA, as fewer total airframes would be required and there would inevitably be training, maintenance, spare parts and operating efficiencies.

One or two RAAF squadrons could be deployed to supplement as required (or, e.g. a single flight of four to six from an RAAF squadron). Perhaps one RAAF squadron could be permanently carrier qualified. That could be ramped up to two *if* it looked more likely that it might be needed.

This is pretty much what the RN did during the Falklands campaign, and perhaps is what will happen with the UK QE carrier. I think I read it would have a normal operating air group of a dozen F35B.

So if that were the case I accept there would need to be an incremental squadron with corresponding costs, but only one squadron. Beyond that would be wasteful.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Following your rationale perhaps the solution would be a single squadron operating a dozen RAN FAA aircraft (whether F35B, F35C or Super Hornets) forming the core of the carrier's air group. (All lead in training and support would need to be provided by RAAF to avoid duplication of the support organisation). It must be said that the same type as operated by the RAAF would be much more efficient than say F35A by the RAAF and F35B by the FAA, as fewer total airframes would be required and there would inevitably be training, maintenance, spare parts and operating efficiencies.

That’s not my rationale at all. Joint training and logistics means both services work together. For example a 50% increase in strike fighters would require a 50% increase in the lead in fighter force. While this could be a Navy lead in fighter squadron it would be crazy if they weren’t flying Hawk 127/128s like the RAAF and sharing a logistics pool. The same for the fighter using the commonalities of the F-35 family.

As to the nature of the F-35 I fail to see how there would be efficiencies by a common fleet of F-35Cs. The extra costs flying F-35Cs compared to F-35As for the RAAF and likewise with the F-35B for the RAN would overwhelm the minor savings of a single type.

So if that were the case I accept there would need to be an incremental squadron with corresponding costs, but only one squadron. Beyond that would be wasteful.

Wasteful? How did you determine that? If we need to have 24 strike fighters at sea on this carrier then how does that mean that the RAAF only needs 36 strike fighters ashore rather than the legacy 48? Which is what it means when you say that one RAAF squadron needs to be sea trained and the Navy only needs one squadron. Obviously somewhere if a successful case is made that the Navy needs a carrier and using the CVF as that model with an air wing of 24 strike fighters that means we need a 50% increase in our strike fighter force and that said force element needs to be sea based.

There is no argument other than it sounds good that supports assuming that such a carrier needs to have a joint force air wing. Unless of course you have a smaller gross force.

 

[Sea Toby]

This is getting silly... Ships have crew rotations, as do their air wings if you are going to do this properly. Neither the sailors or the airmen wish to be at sea forever. Its the same with ships and aircraft as well. The carrier advocates need to be thinking in terms of doubling their numbers, and the costs...

The British were thinking in terms of 150 Lightnings to service two Queen Elizabeth carriers. Even at one Queen Elizabeth one would need nearly as many aircraft dedicated to the naval arm as the land base air force has...

And the naval advocates haven't addressed the destroyer and frigate escorting fleet either, much less the increase of the replenishment fleet.... The alternative is to keep the carrier anchored at a naval base until its engaged, but without any training exercises I doubt a carriers effectiveness...

The carrier advocates are selling snake oil cheap, never really revealing the true costs of operating a carrier properly...

 

[Seaforth]

As to the nature of the F-35 I fail to see how there would be efficiencies by a common fleet of F-35Cs. The extra costs flying F-35Cs compared to F-35As for the RAAF and likewise with the F-35B for the RAN would overwhelm the minor savings of a single type.

For a start, with two separate types one would need a larger number of spare air frames. Then there are training differences, different skill sets develop, and supply chain differences too. Sounds like a nightmare compared to operating a single type.

Wasteful? How did you determine that? If we need to have 24 strike fighters at sea on this carrier then how does that mean that the RAAF only needs 36 strike fighters ashore rather than the legacy 48? Which is what it means when you say that one RAAF squadron needs to be sea trained and the Navy only needs one squadron. Obviously somewhere if a successful case is made that the Navy needs a carrier and using the CVF as that model with an air wing of 24 strike fighters that means we need a 50% increase in our strike fighter force and that said force element needs to be sea based.

That's a very inflexible approach - no wonder defence costs us so much! Firstly, aircraft aren't permanently deployed to carriers. They probably spend almost half the year at their airfield. Secondly the carrier is just a moving airfield - it carries what's needed at the time. Most of the time that might only be, say, 12 aircraft. So why lug around 24, when, as you say, they can be better deployed at that time at a fixed airfield.

This discussion would benefit from more outside the box thinking, otherwise we'll end up with 12 pretty useless submarines (cut back to 8).

 

[Sea Toby]

For a start, with two separate types one would need a larger number of spare air frames. Then there are training differences, different skill sets develop, and supply chain differences too. Sounds like a nightmare compared to operating a single type.



That's a very inflexible approach - no wonder defence costs us so much! Firstly, aircraft aren't permanently deployed to carriers. They probably spend almost half the year at their airfield. Secondly the carrier is just a moving airfield - it carries what's needed at the time. Most of the time that might only be, say, 12 aircraft. So why lug around 24, when, as you say, they can be better deployed at that time at a fixed airfield.

This discussion would benefit from more outside the box thinking, otherwise we'll end up with 12 pretty useless submarines (cut back to 8).

I believe you would sell the six subs the Aussies have now for 12 F-22Bs to operate off the Canberras... You have very little faith for submarines and their ability of sea denial...

 

[jeffb]

This discussion would benefit from more outside the box thinking, otherwise we'll end up with 12 pretty useless submarines (cut back to 8).

Personally a RAN traditional aircraft carrier is up there with an Indonesian invasion. Its all about looking at cool numbers and ignoring reality.

Perhaps you could answer a twist on your own question, when would fast jets deployed from a carrier be more useful than deployed from land to the ADF? Keep in mind the structure of our region.

 

[Seaforth]

I believe you would sell the six subs the Aussies have now for 12 F-22Bs to operate off the Canberras... You have very little faith for submarines and their ability of sea denial...

No that's just silly. I merely made the point that like for like replacement of the current six subs plus a QE carrier could be a much better outcome than 12 new subs.

Especially given our governments' resistance to nuclear powered subs (and nuclear power stations too).

If we went nuclear we'd only need 6 subs - and it seems at a similar cost to 6 of the proposed subs!

Gawd help us the poor Aussie tax payer.. we really do pay for poor decision making...

As an aside, note that the Argentine Navy only returned to port *after* the cruiser was sunk (and there weren't 12 subs in the area). That's the problem with subs they are not a visible deterrent.. not very flexible.

Mind you, on the plus side you don't need too many nuclear powered subs!

 

[Seaforth]

The British were thinking in terms of 150 Lightnings to service two Queen Elizabeth carriers. Even at one Queen Elizabeth one would need nearly as many aircraft dedicated to the naval arm as the land base air force has...

Now that's not true.

It was always the plan to have a single QE class operational at any time.

The potential 150 order for F35 was for both FAA and RAF, with F35 being the ground attack fighter for the RAF. Was there ever a breakdown published of FAA versus RAF?

Revert back to 1975-1978 when Ark Royal was the last CATOBAR carrier operational - did the RN have 150 Phantoms and Buccaneers? No. Was the Ark Royal effective as a deterrent? Yes - it stopped an invasion of Belize with an overflight of 2 Buccaneers (unarmed and very low on fuel) from a distance of 2,000km..

 

[Sea Toby]

No that's just silly. I merely made the point that like for like replacement of the current six subs plus a QE carrier could be a much better outcome than 12 new subs.

Especially given our governments' resistance to nuclear powered subs (and nuclear power stations too).

If we went nuclear we'd only need 6 subs - and it seems at a similar cost to 6 of the proposed subs!

Gawd help us the poor Aussie tax payer.. we really do pay for poor decision making...

As an aside, note that the Argentine Navy only returned to port *after* the cruiser was sunk (and there weren't 12 subs in the area). That's the problem with subs they are not a visible deterrent.. not very flexible.

You forget the Argies advanced their invasion just to avoid the British submarines deployments... They might not be visible at sea but the results of their deployment was very visible...

I''m not in the loop how many subs Australia needs, but six for an island continent is probably not enough. Especially since submarines can do many jobs outside of sea denial. It wasn't naval aviation which sunk most of the Japanese merchant marine during WWII, much of that was done by the submarine service...