They're not
A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?
- Thread starter t68
- Start date
- Status
Not the munition bunkerage it seems, Canberra´s 600 sq mts is quite.
The fuelage is not what it makes a carrier a great carrier, because carriers depend on the replesnishment and tankers ships, any light carrier is going to consume very fast the jp5.
Wasp has twice more as Canberra´s jp5, as Aussienscale pasted ago, that´s because it´s 13000 t. bigger.
I say it again if Canberra´s on their own have jp5 for 2 weeks, Wasp have for 4 weeks, and then runs out as well. So both are poor carrier just because they are light carriers on jp5, but if they go together with tankers then there is no problem for many weeks sustainment in air.
So i wouldn ´t put Canberra and Wasp in the same weight division for making a fair comparison
A poor carrier can be a Nimitz that limited by Catobar procedia, and has no more handling spots than a light carrier (seems visually per photos), it has a relation cost per hour much higher than light carriers that sustain many more aircrafts per tonne (if similar jet endurance) and are logistically faster to prepare mission.
Last edited:
In the flight deck there is the weapons lift, not in the garage or hangar, i haven´t seen or heard it is weapons lift to the garage or hangar, i doubt it a lot, also 2 fueling stations in flight deck, maybe in hangar? So maybe you mean they can be fueled in hangar and garage prior to go upwards...anyway that, that will prepare the jets in the hangar is for launching, because for sustainment in the air you should use flight deck facilities for repreparing the jets.
I guess with sufficient number of jet spots in flight deck you will not even need to fuel them in hangar before to upwards in the original launch. Canberra´s 8 handleing spots (and 2 lifts) for 1 runway for taking off seems pretty, the limit is given by the runway.
For the original launch: once ready all the 8 spots, you launch, once there is a spot free then bring another unprepared for the spot from the lift, and to prepare this you have the time that will take to make 7 more launches, and each launch is to move the jet, prepare and launch, multiplied by seven so when it comes its turn it will be prepared probably, so that you don´t need to fuel previsously in hangar really. 7 or if you have 5 spots for jets then multiplied by 4, add to that the time taken to move each jet from the lift to the preparing spot that it was just free, multiplied by 4 also.
Last edited:
Have you ever seen or read any information about the Battle of Midway... The main reason why the Japanese carriers lit up like torches was because they decided to rearm and refuel on the flight deck during a battle...
Seriously. You have not listened to any of the Defence Professionals when we have all been very very patient in trying to tell you why you're going off half cocked.
Don't tell people why things are so when we know that they are not. You obviously don't have a clue.
I'm finding it particularly offensive that you continue to take this line of approach.
There are enough people in here who actually know what they're on about - I suggest that you start listening.
Bearing in mind the number of times that you have privately and publicly been filled in, take this as a formal warning about changing your style of engagement.
DO NOT tell people how things can be done we know that they aren't for a reason.
its getting beyond a joke.
I understand that most if not all fueling and arming takes place on the flight deck. Perhaps it's safer that way.
Harriers arming on flight deck during Falklands
Arming aircraft on flight deck of Abraham Lincoln 2003
Weapons stage area on flight deck of Abraham Lincoln
Weapons stage area on flight deck of Theodore Roosevelt
Loading operation on flightdeck of Harry S Truman
Flight deck refuelling on John F Kennedy
Here's a good reference:
The flight deck of an aircraft carrier is the preferred area to load or download an aircraft. Normally, the rearming area is adjacent to and aft of the island structure on the flight deck. When operationally necessary, however, the ship's commanding officer (CO) may authorize loading or downloading on the ship's bow while cyclic flight operations are in progress. Only a minimum quantity of weapons should be moved toward the ship's bow.
Loading limited amounts of weapons on the hangar deck may be authorized by the CO when operationally necessary. However, this adds an additional risk of fire because there is both fuel and explosives in a confined area. Only aircraft scheduled for the next launch or an alert condition are authorized for loading on the hangar deck. Authorization is also restricted to the particular weapons shown in table 14-1.
from Loading and Unloading Procedures
to be clear
flight deck is launch, fuel and arm
deck 1 is prelaunch prep, light maint
deck 2 is deep maint
fuel or armour is not available on the lower decks due to safety constraints.
the armoury is separated from the bunkers and nuke weapons are kept in a separate armoured bunker away from both.
flight deck is launch, fuel and arm
deck 1 is prelaunch prep, light maint
deck 2 is deep maint
fuel or armour is not available on the lower decks due to safety constraints.
the armoury is separated from the bunkers and nuke weapons are kept in a separate armoured bunker away from both.
Ok, sorry and thanks.
One reason advocating F35bs is the ground support can give to the forces deployed from Canberrras or deployed by other means even, whether the forces face strong enemies or simply asymetrical threads, the F35b, with this system (with good videos):
F-35 Lightning II Electro-optical Targeting System | Lockheed Martin
A single F35b, with its endurance, with its speed, and modern comms to be in permanent contact directly with ground mates. Can cover and give support as requested to a big sector of zone, be instantly in 1 minute in a zone where its gathering intelligence capabilities, identifying all elements in ground, tracking them, record the info for analysis. Apart all the weapons that can execute and its precission.
And you are not going to burn all the jp5 of a Canberra in 1 week if you just have in the air, when they are required, a couple of F35b´s covering a couple of big sectors with subsectors etc. For that job any light carrier probably don´t even need the fleet tanker. Example: you have 20 jets, and putting all in air you burn the jp5 in 1 week, but if you just have 2 of them in air permanently, you burn it in 1 week x 10 is 10 weeks.
It´s very different to have a minimal fast jet support to ground forces, than to put all jets in air at the same time for a full open jets battle for space dominance, in terms of jp5 requirements.
At the same time, F35b has a system for detecting incoming missiles so that its safer also to use an F35b for supporting ground forces, than any helo.
So that F35b supporting ground forces is useful against high intensity hostile forces, and also simply agains low intensity, asymetrical threas, intelligence gathering in a relatively controlled zone.
One reason advocating F35bs is the ground support can give to the forces deployed from Canberrras or deployed by other means even, whether the forces face strong enemies or simply asymetrical threads, the F35b, with this system (with good videos):
F-35 Lightning II Electro-optical Targeting System | Lockheed Martin
A single F35b, with its endurance, with its speed, and modern comms to be in permanent contact directly with ground mates. Can cover and give support as requested to a big sector of zone, be instantly in 1 minute in a zone where its gathering intelligence capabilities, identifying all elements in ground, tracking them, record the info for analysis. Apart all the weapons that can execute and its precission.
And you are not going to burn all the jp5 of a Canberra in 1 week if you just have in the air, when they are required, a couple of F35b´s covering a couple of big sectors with subsectors etc. For that job any light carrier probably don´t even need the fleet tanker. Example: you have 20 jets, and putting all in air you burn the jp5 in 1 week, but if you just have 2 of them in air permanently, you burn it in 1 week x 10 is 10 weeks.
It´s very different to have a minimal fast jet support to ground forces, than to put all jets in air at the same time for a full open jets battle for space dominance, in terms of jp5 requirements.
At the same time, F35b has a system for detecting incoming missiles so that its safer also to use an F35b for supporting ground forces, than any helo.
So that F35b supporting ground forces is useful against high intensity hostile forces, and also simply agains low intensity, asymetrical threas, intelligence gathering in a relatively controlled zone.
All so true, but so is an RAAF F-35A based from a nearby allied island nation . The RAAF can send more fighters than what a LHD or light carrier can bring. Frankly, I don't see an Australian engagement in the Southwest Pacific or Southeast Asia without the support and approval of the Pacific forum nations. No more so than America being engaged in the Caribbean or Latin America without the support of the Organization of American States...
Throughout this debate, no one has convinced me the absolute need for a light carrier. If anything, I am convinced Australia would have more fighters without wasting billions building and buying a light carrier or operating naval STOVL aircraft...
Particularly as the F35b looks like its on doubtful ground.
I attach a less complicated way of parking which just looses 2 places wrt max amount, they are parked simply parallel, very easy for taking them out or in. Gives a total amount of 13 F35b´s in the hangar and garage, with one in the maintenance place. Wrt 15 F35b in the extreme and more complicated config, it doesn´t mean specialized moving crew cannot do easily the parking for 15 F35b, as they have special wheels for being parked and they learn how to do it. But 13 parallel is really easy.
Also they have free space adaptable, in the head or tail of the jet for working on it even bringing a little lorry with tools etc for maintenance.
Also they have free space adaptable, in the head or tail of the jet for working on it even bringing a little lorry with tools etc for maintenance.
Well that’s no surprise because I don’t think anyone has tried to make a serious capability requirement argument for a carrier. Hypothetical thread and all that.
Of course! Carriers don’t come for free. But fighter strength is not a measure of how many you can line up along the side of an airfield. It is measure by how much airspace you can dominate. The whole point of a carrier is to provide organic air power to the fleet and said fleet is mobile on the seven seas. Fixed land based airpower provides diminishing returns over distance because the aircraft have to fly from their base to the area of interest.
Hornets and F-35s can only stay in the air for about 2 and 3 hours (respectively) with internal fuel. So if the land based air power is a one hour flight away from the fleet then any number of land based aircraft can typically only provide 1/3 the air support as a fleet based aircraft. So suddenly your 72 land based aircraft are the equal of 24 sea based ones. And that doesn’t take into account responsiveness.
This argument assumes that regional partners have airfields that can be used as air bases. That these bases are close or nearby to the fleet and are not vulnerable to closing by the threat. It also doesn’t take into account those strategic emergencies in which regional partners aren’t easily available such as an intra-regional conflict. What if Malaysia was to invade Brunei (using a Tom Clancy story line)? Where would we get regional basing in this situation?
The only rational argument against a carrier capability is net funding to defence from the Government. If the funds are provided it is a central capability, especially considering the Australian geo-strategic environment.
There is another country on the island of Borneo... Indonesia... Really though, Brunei is a very small country and I would think either Malaysia or Indonesia could conquer it if they ever decided to... Plus I don't see how a light aircraft carrier is going to save Brunei from an invasion... Its going to take much much more....
especialy since we have lost the F-111s i would much rather see a couple long range bombers than a light carrier
I've done the rough numbers for a Canberra LHD, and you get about 2 weeks of fuel out of it operating 6 F-35B. And thats pretty light duty sortie rates. Not securing contested airspace or anything. (I think it was 1 aircraft in the air 24/7). It can handle a F-35B, and several for a few days (like a fast response ship to provide limited CAS or relieving carrier while another is enroute). It could also act as a emergency landing spot for F-35B's. Handy to have but carrier capable (F-35B owning) allies would be required to make it work and only if they weren't burdend by amphibious duties.
If Australia was to go down the carrier route, I would definately see the value in a CVF. For a bit more money you get a whole lot more capability. We could load Superhornets or/and its own F-35C's. I wonder if regionally if things got hot (and the Uk was desperate to help and sell/lease) if we could theoretically include a CVF into the RAN.
Why spend billions to beef the RAN up to handle a carrier and then cheap out on the carrier.
If Australia was to go down the carrier route, I would definately see the value in a CVF. For a bit more money you get a whole lot more capability. We could load Superhornets or/and its own F-35C's. I wonder if regionally if things got hot (and the Uk was desperate to help and sell/lease) if we could theoretically include a CVF into the RAN.
Why spend billions to beef the RAN up to handle a carrier and then cheap out on the carrier.
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
plus you dont need to max a queen elizabeth out to its full aircraft complement,that can come latter if need be.
Well with the ability of operating SH from it, it would proberly only get by with a minimal standard airwing and push it up during activities. At least there is some flexability. Even with no airwing it would still be useful a a LHA.
But securing the ship itself would have only limited costs involved. Securing the airwing and escorts would take more time and proberly more money than the ship itself.
But securing the ship itself would have only limited costs involved. Securing the airwing and escorts would take more time and proberly more money than the ship itself.
t68
Well-Known Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #619
I seem to recall a book I have a read a number of years ago by Major Peter Radcliff DCM, who was a SAS Warrant officer in the 91 Gulf War. In the book he had a conversation with a RAF ops officer of some description and it came up about hours a pilot can fly with mission planning on top of that, if i recall correctly it was about 8 hours all up for which he disagreed with as the troops in the field would routinely only have a few hours of sleep.
Do RN/RAAF pilots face the same restrictions as the RAF to the amount of hours they can mission plan and fly?
If so how would that effect a RAN task force with RAAF air coverage compared to a RAN carrier in task force?
Do RN/RAAF pilots face the same restrictions as the RAF to the amount of hours they can mission plan and fly?
If so how would that effect a RAN task force with RAAF air coverage compared to a RAN carrier in task force?
JoeMcFriday
New Member
This is a copy of a post I just made on the other carriers thread, I believe the information and statistics in this thesis are also very relevant here,
Cheers,
Mac
Quote:
Originally Posted by winnyfield View Post
USN post grad thesis on this very topic:
http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholar...08Jun_Cruz.pdf
Thanks for this link, I found it a very useful, well argued and informative read.
Like most successful Master's theses it supplies a lot of well researched stats and regardless of the candidates conclusions are usually a very useful source or pointer to sources.
I'm not being critical of the Commander, just generalizing on theses.
I found his analysis section beginning on P71 to be a very useful/convenient compilation of data and the entire thesis very relevant to this thread.
It's also relevant to the "Hypothetical Carrier Buy for the RAN" thread so I hope you wont mind if I post a link there, duly acknowledged of course.
I wont bore anyone with an attempted critique of his arguments, suffice to recommend it as a good starting point on many relevant aspects of carrier usage and value, past present and future.
Thanks again for the link.
Cheers,
Mac
Cheers,
Mac
Quote:
Originally Posted by winnyfield View Post
USN post grad thesis on this very topic:
http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholar...08Jun_Cruz.pdf
Thanks for this link, I found it a very useful, well argued and informative read.
Like most successful Master's theses it supplies a lot of well researched stats and regardless of the candidates conclusions are usually a very useful source or pointer to sources.
I'm not being critical of the Commander, just generalizing on theses.
I found his analysis section beginning on P71 to be a very useful/convenient compilation of data and the entire thesis very relevant to this thread.
It's also relevant to the "Hypothetical Carrier Buy for the RAN" thread so I hope you wont mind if I post a link there, duly acknowledged of course.
I wont bore anyone with an attempted critique of his arguments, suffice to recommend it as a good starting point on many relevant aspects of carrier usage and value, past present and future.
Thanks again for the link.
Cheers,
Mac
- Status