A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[Sea Toby]

If Australia ever got to the point they needed to bomb Jakarta, Australia should buy a squadron of long range bombers along with maybe a few more air tankers... Doing so would probably cost less than half the expense of a small light carrier carrying a dozen or so jet fighters with a much larger bomb load...

Or buy some long range surface to surface cruise missile, or air to ground long range cruise missile with can be fired from either ships or submarines...

 

[jeffb]

You seriously misunderstand the nature of regional geography and land force power. A mobile reinforced battalion group like the ARG is a very powerful unit in a south east Asian regional context. Apart from a few localised areas near major bases they would have no problem running roughshod over regional armies because they lack firepower and mobility. But anyway the strategy is not to go invading the back country of our neighbours and friends but rather to contribute to regional security and be able to defeat incursions from outside powers.

Nah I understand, I was more making the point for Seaforth, its an easy way to show the realities of the region even if its not exactly honest. Outside of the entire region turning hostile to us theres always going to be potential land bases we can operate from, we might not have enough fighters, AEW&C, aerial refuelers, etc but thats a separate issue.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

personally (and I am a fan of carriers) I don't see them as cost effective solutions for what we need to do. if we need to go expeditionary then it will be a coalition event. we're not geared to to pretend that we can do anything else.

Aye this is the big turning point issue. Our amphibious ready group is basically just another ESG/MEU in overall coalition planning. Of course it won’t be forward deployed except for maybe once or twice to gap fill for the US. Still would be nice to have a carrier strike group to offer into that mix.

 

[Aussie Digger]

If Australia ever got to the point they needed to bomb Jakarta, Australia should buy a squadron of long range bombers along with maybe a few more air tankers... Doing so would probably cost less than half the expense of a small light carrier carrying a dozen or so jet fighters with a much larger bomb load...

Or buy some long range surface to surface cruise missile, or air to ground long range cruise missile with can be fired from either ships or submarines...

We are buying long ranged air launched missiles and long ranged ship and submarine launched missiles. They won't necessarily be the same missile systems, but we will have a pretty robust long ranged strike capability in years to come. Especially in comparison to the likely capabilities in this regard that will be found within SEA...

Tomahawk Block IV or similar from our AWD Destroyers, Future Frigates and new generation submarines and JASSM and JASSM-ER from our fighter aircraft.

My only hope is that with the ability to conduct such strikes, that they are used appropriately and not as a replacement for sound military strategy as we arguably saw with the US during the 90's ie: thinking that real threats could be dealt with by the politically easy 'pin-point' strikes method and not a strategically sound employment of traditional military force.

Such capabilities have to be used to enable traditional military force, not replace it, IMHO.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Aye this is the big turning point issue. Our amphibious ready group is basically just another ESG/MEU in overall coalition planning. Of course it won’t be forward deployed except for maybe once or twice to gap fill for the US. Still would be nice to have a carrier strike group to offer into that mix.

I think Australias amphibious capability will be very important regionally. We are regionally the only really deployable amphibious force (eventually). Thats significant.

Japan, Korea, Singapore, through to India and China aren't really going to/can't really deploy proper amphibious groups for a variety of reasons to our region. While the US can deploy serious amphibious capability, they aren't going to do it every time its convient for Australian policy, or even regional SEA policy. It would not suprise me if there were situations where Australia deployed with minimal US support (like East Timor) or with eventual US support (getting in early to secure key installations before the US can deploy or redeploy). Realisitically our region most likely won't see heavy amphibious assaults (atleast not often), more likely an amphibious landing while a country decends into anarchy, not deploying against dug in professional forces.

While a dedicated Stike carrier would be a handy thing to have, and CATOBAR would push the sortie rates is that what Australia + region really needs? Is it that target rich? Would we not get greater flexability and value out of buying saying 1 or 2 more LHD's (or Cavour type ships carriers but with significant amphib capability) and operating a fleet of ~32 F-35B's off them in a more flexable arrangement inconjunction with land based assets? Being able to call them from not just one but several in theatre assets which are better able to cover wider areas where even if a US carrier is deployed would struggle to operate CAS in that area.

Its not like the region is thick with fighters, and those that do have them would be very hesitant to deploy them off home soil.

I don't see land bases being our solution. Look at East Timor, even once you have landed, there are plenty of places in region that just lack basic facilities, water, sanitation, power, secure from small arms fire, away from disease and other non military threats. You might still have to seabase much of your forces just so you don't overwhelm what ever is left. Being able to invest in something that can turn up and solve all its own problems is pretty handy.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

While a dedicated Stike carrier would be a handy thing to have, and CATOBAR would push the sortie rates is that what Australia + region really needs? Is it that target rich?

A CTOL or CATOBAR carrier has much lower sortie rate potential than a STOVL carrier – all other things being equal. As to target richness yes it is. More importantly there is plenty of threat aircraft, especially since the primary regional threat is China.

Would we not get greater flexability and value out of buying saying 1 or 2 more LHD's (or Cavour type ships carriers but with significant amphib capability) and operating a fleet of ~32 F-35B's off them in a more flexable arrangement inconjunction with land based assets? Being able to call them from not just one but several in theatre assets which are better able to cover wider areas where even if a US carrier is deployed would struggle to operate CAS in that area.

Well as has been discussed at great length and an actual dedicated carrier is better than a LHD for operating carrier air wings. Equalised for size a carrier has the benefit of higher speed, better damage control, lower acoustic and radar signature and better provision of support for the air wing. Any such carrier would be able to double as an effective LPH by flying off the strike air wing and using their space for passeners, vehicles and helos.

As to the sizing of the carrier and its air wing that is something that would require a fair bit of work to determine. I would imagine for the RAN something able to carry 24 F-35Bs, 12 ASW EH101s (or V-22s) and 4 AEW EH101s (or V-22s) and 12 UAVs would be ideal. A 30,000-40,000 tonne carrier.

 

[SASWanabe]

As to the sizing of the carrier and its air wing that is something that would require a fair bit of work to determine. I would imagine for the RAN something able to carry 24 F-35Bs, 12 ASW EH101s (or V-22s) and 4 AEW EH101s (or V-22s) and 12 UAVs would be ideal. A 30,000-40,000 tonne carrier.

so Charles De Gaule - Cats, Traps and + ramp?

Edit: Forgot to mention -nuke + GT or big diesels

 

[aussienscale]

A CTOL or CATOBAR carrier has much lower sortie rate potential than a STOVL carrier – all other things being equal. As to target richness yes it is. More importantly there is plenty of threat aircraft, especially since the primary regional threat is China.



Well as has been discussed at great length and an actual dedicated carrier is better than a LHD for operating carrier air wings. Equalised for size a carrier has the benefit of higher speed, better damage control, lower acoustic and radar signature and better provision of support for the air wing. Any such carrier would be able to double as an effective LPH by flying off the strike air wing and using their space for passeners, vehicles and helos.

As to the sizing of the carrier and its air wing that is something that would require a fair bit of work to determine. I would imagine for the RAN something able to carry 24 F-35Bs, 12 ASW EH101s (or V-22s) and 4 AEW EH101s (or V-22s) and 12 UAVs would be ideal. A 30,000-40,000 tonne carrier.

I would also ad to that, the fact that you would be trying to operate 6-8 B's from the LHD's would impact on the Amphib ability of the LHD's when you take into account the fuel/ammo bunkerage and the negative effect this would also have to sustaining the force ashore. The extra room taken up in the hangar etc which would better be used for the landing force to transport additional vehicles, extra helo's (transported 47's etc), still makes it a compromise.

A smaller version of a QE type carrier would be ideal, and I would stick with the B's for this style carrier just for the fact that if we only have one you can still operate from the LHD's to maintain skill and operational levels.

I know a lot of people have been advocating the RAN getting the QE but I think this is too big for our requirements (even in a hypothetical scenario) ? Would an Australian version of an America class with a ski jump added be the answer ?

 

[JoeMcFriday]

Abe,
I'm not questioning the logic supporting your comparison of STOVL vs CATOBAR ops. and don't wish for these queries to be interpreted as in anyway related to such comparison.

Can STOVL aircraft operate successfully off a CATOBAR carrier as part of the airwing?

Are there practical reasons why this mix doesn't get airplay or is it primarily doctrinal?

I'm not at all asking a "why would you want to" question [just to block others from confusing the issue] just curious and you're the best person I could think to ask on the forum.

Cheers,
Mac

 

[Abraham Gubler]

so Charles De Gaule - Cats, Traps and + ramp?

Edit: Forgot to mention -nuke + GT or big diesels

Charles de Gaulle is not a ship anyone anywhere – including France – would ever build a second one of. If you want a 30,000-40,000 tonne carrier you just design one. The technology put into the CVF is pretty much state of art so just a diminutive version of such. Which for engines means gas/diesel electric. As to the flight deck a ski jump for launching is all you need with all aircraft being STOVL or VTOL.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Can STOVL aircraft operate successfully off a CATOBAR carrier as part of the airwing?

Are there practical reasons why this mix doesn't get airplay or is it primarily doctrinal?

I'm not at all asking a "why would you want to" question [just to block others from confusing the issue] just curious and you're the best person I could think to ask on the forum.

A STOVL (Sea Harrier, F-35B) aircraft should be able to operate as part of a CTOL air wing but would suffer a lot of disadvantages because it would have to conform to the CTOL takeoff and landing practise so as to not completely disrupt the rest of the cycle. This would mean its takeoff run would be limited to the length of the catapult run but without the catapult impulse. Also when landing on it would have to fit into the circuit of the CTOL aircraft so wait a lot of time in the air until its turn in the pattern came up to land. But it wouldn’t need the fuel reserves in case it’s a wave off/bolter unlike the CTOL aircraft

The US Navy has made a big deal about not wanting vertical landing aircraft because the down blast would interfere with everyone else on the flight deck. Personally I think this is overrated. Any STOVL aircraft would land onto the part of the deck cleared for CTOL landing anyway (like the plane guard helo if it had to fish out aircrew from a landing accident) so there wouldn’t be planes or deck crew within 20 odd meters of the point of down blast. Also after landing many CTOL aircraft have to apply quite a bit of thrust to move off the landing area into the bow for parking and this sends a lot of hot air around the flight deck anyway and without the benefit of being bounced and retarded by the deck as in a STOVL down blast.

Also the potential for using a running landing for STOVL would appear to discount the down blast problem. In this case the STOVL aircraft would only have part of its thrust directed downwards to provide lift for low flight speeds (~60 knots) for easy horizontal landing and braking. This was how the RN planned on operating a mixed fleet of V/STOL (catapult launched) fighters (P.1154) and CTOL strike aircraft (Buccaneer) on the CVA-01 in the 1960s/70s.

 

[SASWanabe]

has anyone ever attempted to shove a hook on a V/STOL to turn it into a CATOVL? that would be pretty interesting, Keep the carrier CATOBAR so it can recieve tranports/AWACS but also having the efficiency of a Vertical Landing aircraft.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

has anyone ever attempted to shove a hook on a V/STOL to turn it into a CATOVL? that would be pretty interesting, Keep the carrier CATOBAR so it can recieve tranports/AWACS but also having the efficiency of a Vertical Landing aircraft.

You’ve got the relationship wrong. There is very little need for a hook on a STOVL aircraft because it can fly slow and de-accelerate to a standstill. The hook is only there to stop a plane that is moving at >100 knots and has no way of slowing down. Also the STOVL aircraft adds efficiency not just through much quicker landing on but also much quicker takeoffs and much easier deck spotting.

There have been proposals to operate a carrier with a primary STOVL air wing but with a catapult and arrestor gear so as to take on a few CTOL aircraft. In particular the RN looked at it for CVF so they could fly E-2Ds alongside F-35Bs. There was even some imagery produced of such a carrier. It’s not a bad solution as long as you can fit it all (ski jump, catapult, arrestor gear) in on the deck. Because you don’t need to fly cycles to keep one or two Hawkeyes on station you don’t have the same kind of crewing and pattern limitations of a CTOL carrier. You do need to carry a LOT of crew and gear just to launch and recover a flight of Hawkeyes and the odd CODbird.

A better solution for the future is new technology like the A160 Hummingbird. Each A160 won’t be able to carry the same kind of radar as a E-2D or the airborne fighter controllers but you can have many more AEW aircraft aloft and use the wider network for C2. You also don’t need to worry about the gear for launch and recovery.

 

[JoeMcFriday]

Thanks Abe,
Most of what you say is known or apparent to me [in theory] but the "why not do it" WRT USN thought was not [LOL] which led to my questions.

Your answer, particularly-
"The US Navy has made a big deal about not wanting vertical landing aircraft because the down blast would interfere with everyone else on the flight deck. Personally I think this is overrated."
clarifies the doctrinal rather than physical limitations.

" Personally I think this is overrated"... Given all the hazards on a flight deck, a number of which you highlight, this quote has to classed a ripper of an understatement!!:lol2

I'm impressed with your arguments re. STOVL operation cycles, yet I'm also impressed with the versatility and future proofing that an EMALS CATOBAR deck can provide, [WRT large UCAVS] as well as other standard traffic. I have read that EMALS can be used with a ski jump.

Would it be possible to design a flight deck and procedures that can sustain the operations of aircraft such as the F35B, F35C/Shornet/E2D and large UCAVS that require a boost?

The British pioneering of the rolling landings [to solve a problem] reminds me of the F4U Corsair debacle in WW2 which initially kept that bird off US decks because it was "impossible" to land safely. They foisted it onto the Marines as a land-based fighter [big success] and thought they'd pulled a swifty foisting it on the RN. The RN promptly solved the problem and produced one of the best, if not the best, seaborne fighter/bombers of the war. I guess they were determined to have their Hellcat and it didn't suit them to think outside the square. Then as now, maybe?

Thanks again for your info,
Cheers,
Mac

EDIT: Took so long to get this post in [kids/bed/mayhem] you've answered most of it already! LOL

 

[SASWanabe]

i meant hook them up to the catapult to launch them and have them land verticaly and remove the ski jump from the equation... would they not be able to take off normally with the added speed of the catapult?

 

[Marc 1]

It is impractical for Austria to contemplate an Aircraft carrier as of the type used in the US Navy.

Hey rip, which country shouldn't contemplate an aircraft carrer as of the type used in the US navy?

You guys in the United errrr Arab Emirates? err Kingdom? errrr, fuels depot? always seem to get us mixed up with someone else.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

i meant hook them up to the catapult to launch them and have them land verticaly and remove the ski jump from the equation... would they not be able to take off normally with the added speed of the catapult?

In carrier aviation there is only one HOOK and it traps a wire to bring you on board. The ski jump is far more efficient than a catapult for an aircraft that can also generate lift from thrust. A STOVL plane can takeoff with a catapult – this was how the RN planed on launching the first carrier VSTOL plane the P.1154 – but it can just as easily takeoff with a ski jump and without all the complexities of catapulting.

 

[rip]

6 jets or less means that any flat top cannot maintain and sustain minimum operations. that includes CAP, support to the ASW rotors, support to airborne AWACs and hav redundancy of capability for surge events.

There's a reason why through deck and STOVL cruisers became a bad idea and why all modern navies dropped them after the assets hit their shelf life, and were subsequently not replaced for like capability.

A single small carrier with 6 fixed wing fighter jets will not be able to enter contested complex battlespace and survive with any confidence.

all the assumptions in the world will not change the facts of what all modern navies have learnt about what a minimum fixed wing fighter squadron should comprise.

redundancy of combat air assets is essential - 4 to 6 aircraft is a nonsense in contested space.

Sorry my spelling checker got me again, and yes I meant Australia not Austria

We all agree that the Jeep carrier will never be built but you are wrong about how usefulness it would be. Part of the problem is you still think that the small carrier would try to do the same things as the big carriers do, no they would not. First, I forgot to add in my original post the fact that drones are here to stay; not only for reconnaissance but that the next generation of them, they will have true fighter/bomber functions. They take up half of the space on board a ship and require much less physical support than do manned aircraft, though they will for some time be less capable than manned aircraft they will have significant effect on all types of Naval operations and can be lunched much faster to respond to events because they do not have to have a man waiting inside them.
Operating in the open ocean, away from ground bases fighter support, just having just six aircraft to support you, puts you way ahead of any adversary that has none to support them, no matter how many or kinds of missiles they have. The Jeep Carrier Ideas is more defensive than offensive in scope. It is designed to keep your sea lines of communication open and secure it from raiders, submarines, spy ships, infiltrates, ect. Such a Ship properly escorted by a AAW destroyer with just 6 F-35B’s, 4 helicopters that are outfitted for mainly ASW , and with 4 to 6 Drones, 1 or 2 E-2D’s, it can effectively cover and control hundreds of square miles of ocean at a time at far less cost and manpower than any other platform. It would be a Sea control ship and not one intended for land assault. History has proved that if you do not keep your lines of communication clear you will suffer. The US Navy had ASW carries up to the early 1970’s for this very job (that is why CVN's are called attack carriers) but due to the perceived lack of need they were retired. But if you haven’t noticed it lately, the world, mainly in the Pacific, is bulking up its naval forces of all kinds and the assumed safety of the lines of communication (Australia is particularly vulnerable in this regard) is coming into doubt.

 

[gf0012-aust]

but you are wrong about how usefulness it would be. Part of the problem is you still think that the small carrier would try to do the same things as the big carriers do, no they would not.

their utility is determined also by the cost incurred to guarantee survivability. A capital ship when at flag level still has to survive in contested space irrespective of its mission set and its size. the amount of effort to sustain and protect an LHA may be less than a CVN, but in wartime it will still be close in comparison. the reality is that for countries like Australia these ships double and even triple hat, and their primary role is not about getting "air in the air". I've alluded to this before as I have been involved in some of the flow on working groups about their mission sets and future taskings as they directly impact upon some of the work that I do with my project. A few of the uniforms who are closer to "centre" have also alluded to this as well and/or backed me up. Irrespective of the theoretical implications of what people believe they can do, their primary role has priority. Its not about "air in the air"

First, I forgot to add in my original post the fact that drones are here to stay; not only for reconnaissance but that the next generation of them, they will have true fighter/bomber functions. They take up half of the space on board a ship and require much less physical support than do manned aircraft, though they will for some time be less capable than manned aircraft they will have significant effect on all types of Naval operations and can be lunched much faster to respond to events because they do not have to have a man waiting inside them.

and in posts past, I have stated quite clearly the shift to UAVs and other dismounted delivery sets for future requirements.

Operating in the open ocean, away from ground bases fighter support, just having just six aircraft to support you, puts you way ahead of any adversary that has none to support them, no matter how many or kinds of missiles they have. The Jeep Carrier Ideas is more defensive than offensive in scope. It is designed to keep your sea lines of communication open and secure it from raiders, submarines, spy ships, infiltrates, ect. Such a Ship properly escorted by a AAW destroyer with just 6 F-35B’s, 4 helicopters that are outfitted for mainly ASW , and with 4 to 6 Drones, 1 or 2 E-2D’s, it can effectively cover and control hundreds of square miles of ocean at a time at far less cost and manpower than any other platform. It would be a Sea control ship and not one intended for land assault. History has proved that if you do not keep your lines of communication clear you will suffer. The US Navy had ASW carries up to the early 1970’s for this very job (that is why CVN's are called attack carriers) but due to the perceived lack of need they were retired. But if you haven’t noticed it lately, the world, mainly in the Pacific, is bulking up its naval forces of all kinds and the assumed safety of the lines of communication (Australia is particularly vulnerable in this regard) is coming into doubt.

current ASW flat tops like the Hyugas are still unable to carry fixed wing AWACs (which are also the CEC range extenders). Also you are putting a bit too much faith in local rotary air being able to fulfill an effective ASW role, in a properly resouced task force, and esp in time of war, ASW dutied hulls would be standard mix to the fleet. Depending on the duty cycle and the duty location (determines how contested and complex the threat matrix for that loc is) then a flat top masquerading as a carrier (secondary role) will need more than 1 x AWD, more than 1 x ASW skimmer in tow to assist. unless there is fleet replenishment in tow, then the flattie is double duty as the local tanker and this cuts time on station and range as well as flexibility issues. Peacetime task force structures like the French navy TF orbat just won't survive day 1 of the planning cycle.

even small flatties in wartime are resource intensive.

to have effectivenes both flatty task forces would need deploying and to be within rapid sail time response of the other to provide expanded defence and CEC response

 

[rip]

their utility is determined also by the cost incurred to guarantee survivability. A capital ship when at flag level still has to survive in contested space irrespective of its mission set and its size. the amount of effort to sustain and protect an LHA may be less than a CVN, but in wartime it will still be close in comparison. the reality is that for countries like Australia these ships double and even triple hat, and their primary role is not about getting "air in the air". I've alluded to this before as I have been involved in some of the flow on working groups about their mission sets and future taskings as they directly impact upon some of the work that I do with my project. A few of the uniforms who are closer to "centre" have also alluded to this as well and/or backed me up. Irrespective of the theoretical implications of what people believe they can do, their primary role has priority. Its not about "air in the air"




and in posts past, I have stated quite clearly the shift to UAVs and other dismounted delivery sets for future requirements.



current ASW flat tops like the Hyugas are still unable to carry fixed wing AWACs (which are also the CEC range extenders). Also you are putting a bit too much faith in local rotary air being able to fulfill an effective ASW role, in a properly resouced task force, and esp in time of war, ASW dutied hulls would be standard mix to the fleet. Depending on the duty cycle and the duty location (determines how contested and complex the threat matrix for that loc is) then a flat top masquerading as a carrier (secondary role) will need more than 1 x AWD, more than 1 x ASW skimmer in tow to assist. unless there is fleet replenishment in tow, then the flattie is double duty as the local tanker and this cuts time on station and range as well as flexibility issues. Peacetime task force structures like the French navy TF orbat just won't survive day 1 of the planning cycle.

even small flatties in wartime are resource intensive.

to have effectivenes both flatty task forces would need deploying and to be within rapid sail time response of the other to provide expanded defence and CEC response

All aircraft are resource intensive, the question is how much more intensive is it to place them on a ship verses than put them on a land base and what additional capacity does that give you if you do? The other question is what other method would you used to protect your lines of communication that would be better, cheaper or safer? The Jeep Carrier concept with just one of the New Electric Catapults which is now coming on line making catapult launch far more practical for smaller hulls, could lunch and recover all of the big carrier’s type aircraft though the Jeep itself is far too small to be used as an operational base. But it would work just fine for launching an E-2D every 6 or eight hours. I know that the problem of keeping your lines of communication open is not a sexy one in today’s imagination. It is one of those things that get forgotten after every war and has to be relearned all over again after your lines of communication are disrupted. Attacking your lines of communication is a less expensive method of attacking your enemies than a stand up battle. It is the strategy that the weaker party used against the stronger but it has results that far out class the costs. The battle of the Atlantic against the German U-boats was not finally turned until they had air cover from the convoys own escorts. But like I said they will not build one unless they suffer the same high loses that they did back then. Then they would be reinvented once again.