A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

Status
Not open for further replies.

SASWanabe

Member
Only one Capital city in New Zealand - Wellington - and thats already taken.

You could pay homage to us by naming future ships after Kiwi's who have down well in Australia. That Joh Peterson bloke who used to run Queensland, Russell Crowe, Phar Lap .... or politicians like Helen Clark,,,:rolleyes:
dont forget the country itself HMAS New Zealand :D
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
dont forget the country itself HMAS New Zealand :D
HMNZS West Island :duel

I think we had better knock off the jokey stuff before we upset those who are taking this thread seriously.

Australia having a fully fledged carrier again is like the RNZN wanting a Cruiser like it did in the 50's and 60's back. Then again levity in discussions is a good thing...;)
 

Kirkzzy

New Member
Only one Capital city in New Zealand - Wellington - and thats already taken.

You could pay homage to us by naming future ships after Kiwi's who have down well in Australia. That Joh Peterson bloke who used to run Queensland, Russell Crowe, Phar Lap .... or politicians like Helen Clark,,,:rolleyes:
Oh god.... Joh Bjelke-Petersen what good? He wasn't even popular :( only won as he had more seats (and not the popular vote) and would divide up current electorates in country parts of Queensland which voted for him to increase the size of parliament and give him a larger majority. (with those added electorates)
 

JoeMcFriday

New Member
Oh god.... Joh Bjelke-Petersen what good? He wasn't even popular :( only won as he had more seats (and not the popular vote) and would divide up current electorates in country parts of Queensland which voted for him to increase the size of parliament and give him a larger majority. (with those added electorates)
By Jove you've got it!!!

HMQS Gerry Mander!!

It's as good as pumpkin scones and peanut butter.

Cheers,
Mac
 
Last edited:

t68

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #805
We would only have to buy an additional 24 F35C/Super hornet if we keep our current Super Hornet’s for a total of 48 carrier capable aircraft, 4 Squadrons in total, but only 2 that rotate aboard the carrier in normal operational strength but could be expanded if needed, although I would like to see the FAA operational again, I believe it would be beneficial for the RAAF to have control the RN I believe only planned to carry 36 fixed wing plus helicopter support with the B model.

But in all honesty if Australia was only to get the 1 dedicated aircraft carriers and the F35B is not canned. An America class would suit our needs better as when the Australia class (America class) is in refit a LHD in theory could take a small compliment of fixed wing aircraft, as well as acting as another resupply asset if needed.

Australia only operated the 1 carrier for many years it’s not an ideal solution but one the RAN has managed in the past, having a Queen Elizabeth would bring more flexibility over the America class to the RAN, with other coalition partner aircraft able to fly off it (Super Hornet,F35C,Rafale,super Etendard ). If New Zealand is serious about re-engaging in a ACF with the Super Hornets to go back to the US a mates rate deal on all 24 aircraft could also potentially see aircraft training and flying (in Kiwi colours) off the carrier as well forming a ANZAC air group, NZ in the past based the A4 Skyhawks in Nowra 12 aircraft deploying off a carrier for 3/5 months should not be a problems.
 

rip

New Member
F-35B/C has no internal guns?

The B and C variants are using a gun pod I think which somehow detracts from the stealth.. but I honestly got no idea how it would affect the stealth, just that the A variant is the best all round for stealth, pay load (no internal add ons like lifting fans or anything) and manoeuvrability.

As for "HMAS Australia" that was the original name for the Melbourne replacement.
In the fighter role ether in the escort or air dominance parts of the spectrum guns have proven to be over and over again, indispensable where you get in to knife fighting range. The scenarios where the range of the wonderful Air to Air missiles is operationally unimportant because of the (rules of engagement) often require visual identification first before you can engage. This is very common in the reak world and it cannot be dismissed.

On the other hand in the bombing role, some of the best tactical boomers in history had no defensive equipment at all. In this case the F-35C or C, it will still have ECM and Sidewinders to protect its self even when on purely bombing missions.
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
The scenarios where the range of the wonderful Air to Air missiles is operationally unimportant because of the (rules of engagement) often require visual identification first before you can engage. This is very common in the reak world and it cannot be dismissed.
It was my impression that these scenarios were not commonplace anymore? I know it's happened in the past, but I thought modern sensor capabilities allowed for a much greater level of discrimination/discretion in prosecuting BVR targets?
 

t68

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #808
In the fighter role ether in the escort or air dominance parts of the spectrum guns have proven to be over and over again, indispensable where you get in to knife fighting range. The scenarios where the range of the wonderful Air to Air missiles is operationally unimportant because of the (rules of engagement) often require visual identification first before you can engage. This is very common in the reak world and it cannot be dismissed.

On the other hand in the bombing role, some of the best tactical boomers in history had no defensive equipment at all. In this case the F-35C or C, it will still have ECM and Sidewinders to protect its self even when on purely bombing missions.


In contested airspace is their still the need to visually identify the aircraft to prevent a blue on blue, or does the IFF transponder come to the fore, can the intercepting aircraft interrogate the unidentified aircraft or only AWACS or ground based radar?
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
If we got a carrier we would have to call it HMAS Australia, I don't think any other name would evolke the same sort of power, despite the problem with naming a sinkable ship after your nation (or the redundant naming). However, a 65,000t carrier falls into the category that makes that a pretty much a non-issue.

We could go with a mix of aircraft, F-35B and the superhornets. The B's could take off/land on the LHD's or the carrier, and the Sh could operate from the carrier or land bases. When the carrier isn't able to make it, the B's would still offer short term capability off a LHD.
That being said, we could support most operations for a short period of time from land bases and extensive refuelling.

Can you launch a B from a catapault? Or is it too light weight and dainty?
 

t68

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #810
If we got a carrier we would have to call it HMAS Australia, I don't think any other name would evolke the same sort of power, despite the problem with naming a sinkable ship after your nation (or the redundant naming). However, a 65,000t carrier falls into the category that makes that a pretty much a non-issue.

We could go with a mix of aircraft, F-35B and the superhornets. The B's could take off/land on the LHD's or the carrier, and the Sh could operate from the carrier or land bases. When the carrier isn't able to make it, the B's would still offer short term capability off a LHD.
That being said, we could support most operations for a short period of time from land bases and extensive refuelling.

Can you launch a B from a catapault? Or is it too light weight and dainty?


I can see where you are coming from with the F35B, but if we go to the added expense of cat and trap that in my opinion would rule out the more expensive and complex aircraft, better to stick with what we already have in the system then add another layer. With a buy of F35C they will be basically the same as an F35A in power plant and avionics just longer range and more robust for a harsher life aboard a carrier but with a speculated cost saving 25% over the lifetime of the F35B.
Differences between variants
F-35A
F-35B
F-35C

Length 51.4 ft (15.7 m) 51.3 ft (15.6 m) 51.5 ft (15.7 m)
Wingspan 35 ft (10.7 m) 35 ft (10.7 m) 43 ft (13.1 m)
Wing Area 460 ft² (42.7 m²) 460 ft² (42.7 m²) 668 ft² (62.1 m²)
Empty weight 29,300 lb (13,300 kg) 32,000 lb (14,500 kg) 34,800 lb (15,800 kg)
Internal fuel 18,500 lb (8,390 kg) 13,300 lb (6,030 kg) 19,600 lb (8,890 kg)
Max takeoff weight 70,000 lb (31,800 kg) 60,000 lb (27,000 kg) 70,000 lb (31,800 kg)
Range 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) 900 nmi (1,670 km) 1,400 nmi (2,520 km)
Combat radius on
internal fuel 590 nmi (1,090 km) 450 nmi (833 km) 640 nmi (1,185 km)
 

SASWanabe

Member
If we got a carrier we would have to call it HMAS Australia, I don't think any other name would evolke the same sort of power, despite the problem with naming a sinkable ship after your nation (or the redundant naming). However, a 65,000t carrier falls into the category that makes that a pretty much a non-issue.

We could go with a mix of aircraft, F-35B and the superhornets. The B's could take off/land on the LHD's or the carrier, and the Sh could operate from the carrier or land bases. When the carrier isn't able to make it, the B's would still offer short term capability off a LHD.
That being said, we could support most operations for a short period of time from land bases and extensive refuelling.

Can you launch a B from a catapault? Or is it too light weight and dainty?

Why dont we just paint QE on the apron at Albatross?
worked for Melbourne
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think the B is just so flexable for a country like us, where many far flung islands would really struggle to launch A or C, and you get the LHD capability (marginal as it is) as well.

Heres another though what about an island carrier? Fitting a airstrip with a emag launcher and associated facilities? Christmas island (or smaller!)? Able to launch heavier aircraft and give them further range?

What about this, what if Australia was to get 24 F-35 "C" that are able to operate from land or US/UK carriers regardless if we are even concidering a carrier. We tap into USN logistics, you get a longer ranged aircraft, you get training opportunities with US/UK carrier's and navies. We get a FAA without carrier costs.
 

Kirkzzy

New Member
I think the B is just so flexable for a country like us, where many far flung islands would really struggle to launch A or C, and you get the LHD capability (marginal as it is) as well.

Heres another though what about an island carrier? Fitting a airstrip with a emag launcher and associated facilities? Christmas island (or smaller!)? Able to launch heavier aircraft and give them further range?

What about this, what if Australia was to get 24 F-35 "C" that are able to operate from land or US/UK carriers regardless if we are even concidering a carrier. We tap into USN logistics, you get a longer ranged aircraft, you get training opportunities with US/UK carrier's and navies. We get a FAA without carrier costs.
I can see the merit in that, the flexibility of the F-35B would be brilliant. We could launch them from the LHDs, carriers or land. It is just the capability I am a little concerned about and the range. (But if something is carrying them, like an LHD it could have even longer range, whereas the F-35A would have to have tankers supporting it.) Capability wise though I still prefer the F-35A, as I don't think we need that flexibility. All we will use the aircraft for will be air defence and strike, if they are deployed they will be in a near by allied location anyway.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
I think the B is just so flexable for a country like us, where many far flung islands would really struggle to launch A or C, and you get the LHD capability (marginal as it is) as well.

Heres another though what about an island carrier? Fitting a airstrip with a emag launcher and associated facilities? Christmas island (or smaller!)? Able to launch heavier aircraft and give them further range?

What about this, what if Australia was to get 24 F-35 "C" that are able to operate from land or US/UK carriers regardless if we are even concidering a carrier. We tap into USN logistics, you get a longer ranged aircraft, you get training opportunities with US/UK carrier's and navies. We get a FAA without carrier costs.
Really folks, neither the US or the UK will allow Aussie pilots landing on their carriers until the pilots have qualified to do so... While there may be some Aussie pilots qualified, not many are... Its one thing to operate off a painted airfield runway, its another thing to operate CTOL aircraft off ships at sea pitching and rolling...

A simple civilian example will be the difference between naval and air force trained commercial airline reserve pilots with their landing techniques. Navy trained pilots bring the nose down quickly, while air force trained pilots bring the nose down slowly...

If the RAAF did buy C versions of the Joint Strike Fighter, don't assume many of the air force pilots will ever be qualified to operate off allied carriers... Since they most likely won't be qualified, why bother to buy Cs?

Its not the platform of each aircraft, an A will have much more range than a C with aerial refueling... And It doesn't take much effort or time to convert civilian airliners to tankers in a wartime environment....

Similar to replenishment ships, Australia maintains an air force tanker fleet to maintain aerial refueling skills... Think in terms of an automobile... I can drive any car as far as any other car when I refill the fuel tank somewhere along the way... While its nice one car can go 100 miles more distance with a full tank, its not all that important...
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Really folks, neither the US or the UK will allow Aussie pilots landing on their carriers until the pilots have qualified to do so...
we currently have people on exchange who do carrier work
 
Last edited:

SASWanabe

Member
I am sure you do have some pilots that are carrier qualified. But every pilot in every squadron? Or one squadron? I doubt that...
im not sure how many, but i know the first bunch of Shornet pilots learnt to fly off carriers... being a carrier aircraft and all
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Sea Toby said:
Really folks, neither the US or the UK will allow Aussie pilots landing on their carriers until the pilots have qualified to do so...
followed by:

Sea Toby said:
I am sure you do have some pilots that are carrier qualified. But every pilot in every squadron? Or one squadron? I doubt that...
but that wasn't the ask - see above
you're not going to train everyone unless there is a requirement - and about 12 months I stated on here that one of the tells about whether we would have JSF on the LHn's would be cohorts of pilots going off for block training.

we do have people who are attached and doing dissimilar roles because its about doctrine exchange and learning...
 
Last edited:

t68

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #819
Capability wise though I still prefer the F-35A, as I don't think we need that flexibility. All we will use the aircraft for will be air defence and strike, if they are deployed they will be in a near by allied location anyway.


Consider this, in September of 1971 the UK with the USN conducted the EX Royal Knight in Iceland-Faroes gap, maintaining a 2 aircraft CAP using F4 Phantoms for 1 day 550 miles out from RAF Leuchars into the North Sea it needed 12 aircraft and 53 flying hours to perform the role, when the task force moved to 750 miles out it required 14 F4 Phantoms and 10 converted Victor air refuelling aircraft just to keep a pair of Phantoms on station for 6 days. When the task force moved further out, only the 3 Squadrons of Phantoms on board HMS Ark Royal and the USS independence defended the task force from air attack. For the RAAF to accomplish anything remote as that would tie up the MRTT fleet alone, a carrier can have 2 aircraft flying CAP/Strike role 80 miles from the task force in 10 minutes, without using the few resources available to the RAAF.

What price should we put on the protection of the Australian Fleet at sea when could possibly have both LHD operating at the same time with a task force with up to 1400 RAN/Army personnel aboard just 1 Canberra class LHD.

Phoenix Squadron by Rowland White page154.
[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoenix-Squadron-Rowland-White/dp/0593054504"]Phoenix Squadron: Amazon.co.uk: Rowland White: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51YDf5HqBfL.@@AMEPARAM@@51YDf5HqBfL[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor"]Handley Page Victor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Raf_victor_in_1961_arp.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Raf_victor_in_1961_arp.jpg/300px-Raf_victor_in_1961_arp.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/18/Raf_victor_in_1961_arp.jpg/300px-Raf_victor_in_1961_arp.jpg[/ame]
 
Last edited:

Sea Toby

New Member
Consider this, in September of 1971 the UK with the USN conducted the EX Royal Knight in Iceland-Faroes gap, maintaining a 2 aircraft CAP using F4 Phantoms for 1 day 550 miles out from RAF Leuchars into the North Sea it needed 12 aircraft and 53 flying hours to perform the role, when the task force moved to 750 miles out it required 14 F4 Phantoms and 10 converted Victor air refuelling aircraft just to keep a pair of Phantoms on station for 6 days. When the task force moved further out, only the 3 Squadrons of Phantoms on board HMS Ark Royal and the USS independence defended the task force from air attack. For the RAAF to accomplish anything remote as that would tie up the MRTT fleet alone, a carrier can have 2 aircraft flying CAP/Strike role 80 miles from the task force in 10 minutes, without using the few resources available to the RAAF.

What price should we put on the protection of the Australian Fleet at sea when could possibly have both LHD operating at the same time with a task force with up to 1400 RAN/Army personnel aboard just 1 Canberra class LHD.

Phoenix Squadron by Rowland White page154.
Phoenix Squadron: Amazon.co.uk: Rowland White: Books

Handley Page Victor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apples and oranges. If the naval ships weren't in the middle of a sea without nearby land air bases there would not have been a need for a CAP there... Obviously the air threat there 40 years ago involved the Soviets...

I know of no location close to Australia in the South Pacific that has the same geographic and air threat disadvantages as the far North Atlantic 40 years ago....

Surely you aren't advocating the need for Australian aircraft carriers over a far North Atlantic scenario....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top