ah that explains quite a bit for the C2. In regards to using tankers to extend range of strikes would it still be possible to do so with an F35C or SHornet air-wing as even the british carries did for the Belize op as a show of force
A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?
- Thread starter t68
- Start date
- Status
Sure it’s possible but the Op Phoenix mission was hardly a frequent occurrence (an extreme one off) and it utilised skills (buddy-buddy range extension) left over from the nuclear strike role (which I mentioned). The USN, RN and co. no longer practice airborne delivery of nuclear weapons into the Soviet heartland via carrier aviation. This role is now filled by cruise missiles.
Long strike range for carrier air (ie deep strike) is very much a left over from the SIOP nuclear warfare plans. Contemporary carrier air capability is referred to as “TACAIR” (tac is for tactical) and no longer has this is a major role.
A carrier is in itself an inherent range extender. If you need to strike at a further 200 NM away then the carrier sails in that direction for 8 hours. In the Falklands (last major contested carrier battle) the RN would move their carriers back and forth every day for air operations and even sent Invincible to the west side of the islands to interdict Argentine air lines of communications.
In CTOL carrier operations what is far more important than radius of action is cycle time – how long a plane can stay in the air – in order to provide enough time to launch and recover the air wing.
Assuming a modern CTOL carriers' aircraft return undamaged and require just refueling and rearming, what is the average turn around time, 1 hour, 2 hours?
It depends on the cycle time that the carrier is operating. In a typical 90 minute cycle an event of around 20 aircraft will be recovered in about 15 minutes and then re-spotted and prepared for another mission in 60 minutes and then launched in 15 minutes. Shorter cycles (60 minutes) mean the event has to be less aircraft because they can't all be prepared. Longer cycles (105 minutes) are more fuel critical but you can do more preperation. Anything damaged will be dumped from the next event and replaced with a spare.
As the C/D Hornets are replaced by F-35Cs the cycles will become longer because the aircraft will have more fuel endurance. Also most carrier operations are supported by land based IFR so have frequent tank after launch allowing longer cycles. In support of OIF/OEF carrier TACAIR will have extensive IFR allowing for 8 hour events but they still fly cycles just with far fewer launches/recoveries per cycle (<10).
I suppose the other advantage with STO/VL is you can deploy replacements / re-enforcements to theater on a containership and just VL them to fly to the carrier from a couple of hundred Nm out. For long deployment it even makes the concept of an aircraft repair ship viable, have all the necessary gear containerised and build a large maintenance hanger / workshop out of containers.
You can achieve all of that with a CTOL aircraft by the addition of a heavy lift helicopter.
True and an unairworthy STO/VL would need the same, I'm just enjoying my fantasy of fighters flying off container ships or modern day MAC ships.
Well that's a different beast and as is the situation with the RAN today when all your fatships are halfway to the wreckers a STOVL airwing could always be accomodated in a converted container ship if your carrier(s) were on the fritz.
If you have access to suitable commercial tonnage which could be an issue in the Australian context.
When are we likely to hear/read whether the Bay buy/lease will proceed? The pressure must be on following the recent uproar over the existing amphib assets.
RFA Cardigan Bay has Just returned from three years in the Northern Gulf where she supported Iraqi Navy training and acted as a lily pad for Allied operations. A pretty long deployment away from her home port, which I think reflects the quality of the vessel. It would be crazy for the RAN not to go for the available Bay right now to support the rest of the fleet and provide a training tool for the future LHD's.
Navy News February 2011
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
RAN has a team or two negotiating the matter right now. I don't think the quality of the boat is at issue (though I'm sure RAN will probably take a VERY good look at the 2nd hand boat they are buying to replace their earlier bought 2nd hand boats which didn't turn out to be such a bargain afterall) but it doesn't need to be rushed.
If we don't get it, we don't get it. We'll make do with Tobruk and whatever spare capability we can beg/borrow off our allies until 2014, when our amphibious issues should be relieved somewhat...
Sensible to be thorough, but given that she's 20 years newer than they were when bought, the risk of her being a rustbucket is much less.
One thing I have noticed about this thread, is that people are always jumping in saying "We can't do this and that for budgetary reasons, manpower issues and logistics." Which is 100 percent correct, yet people are failing to see that this is a hypothetical, where we do magically have all of these. I think this thread needs to be look at from a different angle by asking a new question.
"If Australia was to buy a new carrier because some pro war militaristic nut job became prime minister and magically had all the necessary tools, logistics, money, manpower.. etc.. Then what would be the best option as a carrier for Australia and what would be the right fleet structure/size to support this carrier and its battle group?"
"If Australia was to buy a new carrier because some pro war militaristic nut job became prime minister and magically had all the necessary tools, logistics, money, manpower.. etc.. Then what would be the best option as a carrier for Australia and what would be the right fleet structure/size to support this carrier and its battle group?"
Last edited:
There is a personal reference above that is cutting whats acceptable to the bone. I might be a good idea to remove it. I will leave that to you tidy it up.
Thanks mate - I appreciate you doing that.
Last edited:
Then why bother to settle for anything less than twice the size of a Ford? Would you want the biggest and best if there are no parameters? A pissing contest. Tools, logistics, money, and manpower do count....
to add to Mr C's feedback... if you've read this post from the beginning you will have noticed that this issue has been discussed a number of times....
It would be useful for you to not only read the thread from the start if you want to see whats been said, but it would also be in your interest to heed Mr C's advice...
You need to understand what's on the threat matrix before you spend any coin on anything.
its a threat assessment issue
its then a capability requirement
it's then a balance of forces against those potential threads
its then whats available in the spend bucket to sustain those forces for the next 30 years, allow for development, attrition and manning. ie raise, train, sustain costs
its then whether the rest of Govt will allow defence to maintain that spend persistently across the life of the threat vision
everything is ultimately about political will and intent.
defence gets whats left at the whim and understanding of the government of the day.
If the capability required of the RAN by the Government was increased to the point that a carrier capability was mandated and the appropriate funding required then it would be a straight forward exercise. Firstly there is no need for additional escorts. The RAN already has escorts the carrier would be inserted into the existing naval task group arrangement. There would be a need for additional auxiliary support with basically an AOR required for each carrier and customised to carrying the right levels of jet fuel and aircraft ordnance to resupply the carrier(s).
As to the type of carrier clearly an F-35B carrier offers the easiest way to get tacair into the fleet. Such a carrier could be sized from 12 to 36 F-35s and supporting helos. Sizing would really be determined by how much strike capability was needed. A light carrier with 12 F-35Bs would provide considerable layered air defence capability for a typical RAN task group and shaping strike for high value targets. A 24/36 F-35B carrier would provide air defence and sustained strike (CAS) capability.
Numbers of carriers would be dependent on what level of sustainment and reach is required. A single carrier would provide a managed capability like the LHDs. You will have the capability most of the time when you need it but you can’t guarantee it all the time. Two carriers guarantees you will always have one ready for warfare and a higher level of air wing training readiness (the later being probably not as crucial with the F-35B). Three carriers would mean you can have two at sea; one for each of the two escort groups.
Thank you for that, I was hoping for a post like this to come up. I was just really wanting to know that if a carrier was available then what should Australia go with or what are the options and out of those options the roles that each of them provide. Thanks mate for biting the bullet and offering a great explanation.
- Status