ADF General discussion thread

[Stampede]

Some sceptics suggest that an ADF CVL and F-35B option is pie in the sky, which is fair enough based upon the evidence of the latest ADF equivalent of a Defence Capability Plan. I don't think that using a LHD as a temporary CV is going to cut the mustard either. One of my reasons is that whilst multi-roling can be good, it also can be taken to far and you end with a frankenform that's of no bloody use for anything. The other is the oft repeated reason of reduction of the LHD's core reason for existence - AMPHIB OPS. If the RAN was the size of the USN, that wouldn't be such a major factor.

However we don't know what the future may bring and it could be that CDF decides that the situation warrants either a change in ADF CONOPS and capabilities or it doesn't. That's what it comes down to. All going well, they will make that decision based upon the best possible information available to them. If a change is deemed necessary, then it is presented to the pollies for their approval. We all know that's how it works.

I think now rather than focusing upon which platforms / capabilities are best, we should actually determine whether or not such a capability is desirable within tthe ADF and if so the logical reasons why or why not. To my way of thinking, just because other countries such as Spain, Turkey or Italy have such capabilities is not a valid reason for Australia to have the same.

Why do those three countries want to operate fast jets off decks? We could undoubtedly find many military reasons, but what is the overarching main justication for pouring billions out of a national treasury into such capabilities for a midrate navy of a country that doesn't really have the treasure to splurge on such expensive projects? Yes I know Turkey has been expelled from the F-35 program. Is it because of prestige - a my dick is bigger than your dick type of competition - that these three nations have gone down this path? After all the Spanish and Italians are well known for it and have a long history of such behaviour going back to Roman times. WRT Turkey we all know the size of Erdoğan's ego so it's nothing unexpected of him. Now that he can't get his F-35B, he might have to ask his cobber Vladimir for some Yakolev VTOL aircraft. But whatever the reasons, all three economies aren't the best performing in the world and such expenditure may have been better spent elsewhere in their defence budgets.

Then we have South Korea and Japan. Unlike the three nations mentioned above they are in a region where an aggressive nation, PRC, is pursuing an active expansionist program utilising grey warfare methods to illegally sieze maritime assets and territory. The PRC is building and expanding a navy that now exceeds the USN in size. The physical closeness of South Korea and Japan to both the PRC and NK makes their landbased airpower vulnerable to both PRC and NK missile attack.

Australia is not in the position of South Korea or Japan, and whilst us Kiwis like to think that Aussies are sometimes up themselves, we generally don't think that they're that far up themselves to have a project such as this for purely vanity reasons. So putting platforms to one side for the moment:

1. Is such a capability required by the ADF?
   1. If so why? And,
   2. Conversely if not why not?
2. What are the actual advantages and disadvantages for Australia to have such a capability?
3. Since such a capability is not seen by the government as necessary at the moment, is it foreseeable that this position will change?
   1. If so, why?
   2. If so, when?

I think that these are the questions that have to be answered before any debate upon platforms, numbers etc., can be had.

Nice summation and questions on the F35B subject.
Obviously I fall in the yes camp.
I have already given some but not all the reasons for my opinion.

What I feel is important however is to have the conversation.

The subject is too important to be dismissed as some fan boy fantasy fleets stuff.
Yes it is a major undertaking in capital and training.
Yes it MAY / MAY NOT compromise what can be accommodated aboard the LHD's.
It is however always about what it adds to the ADF, not what it takes.

That is the conversation.

Cheers

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

View attachment 48192
Its 20 AV8 Harriers, in the hangar, and its ferry only. (View topic - F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft carrier - F-35 Variants and Missions). Based off the original image by Bazan what is now Navantia created long ago back when it was the BPE and before it was in the water, trying to push the project through. While the F-35B and the harrier are of similar size they aren't exactly the same. I doubt 20 harriers would ever even be ferried in a JC1 design, I would bet physically you wouldn't be able to, and when it comes to F-35's its going to be significantly less. Some people then claim 32 with another 12 on the deck, again, this is not a useable number, this is "in theory" napkin calculation, ferry, too many aircraft operations could not occur with this many aircraft.

Spain has not operated the JC1 with more than 11 Harriers AFAIK, and that would be in full carrier mode. That is a reasonable maximum, and throw in 3-4 helicopters. Think of Spains carrier history, the JC1 "replaced" the Principe de Asturias, a 15,000t "carrier", which was designed around 12 harriers at a light tempo. PdA replaced Dedalo a wwII USS Cabot, 11,000t, which operated with 8 harriers. All three are not optimal full time carriers, but more sea control/escort carriers. But a pocket carrier is all some countries need. Spain intended to operate either in range of airfields, or with other carriers.

View attachment 48193
Spanish actually using the LHD hangar with harriers in a far more logical arrangement

The LHD's aren't designed as a carrier to project power against a peer force either land or sea based. Spain never designed or built them for that purpose. Its for very mild at sea aviation capability, supported by nearby airfields, against an enemy with no/weak naval air capability in that area. They aren't 24/7/365 CAP assets. The deterrent is having aircraft on the deck, not flying regular patrols.

Australia could surge two LHD's, and get something approaching a dedicated carrier, able to support a squadron of aircraft (~12 per ship) at a reasonable tempo, with say 4-8 helicopters. But you have now tied up the entire RAN (surface force, amphibious force, fleet supply, submarines etc) to provide that force, for a short period. You have tied up/negated all the amphibious capability basically of the army too. And the RAAF would be significantly tied to this as well. You will need escorts as well. How much training will we get to practice and operate this kind of short term but intense capability?

I would add that neither the Italians nor the Japanese are intending their carriers to be extraordinary blue water assets. We are talking 12-16 aircraft. Operating with ground bases. Im not sure the investment in a Cavor type ship gets us where we would need to be in terms of carrier power. Cavor is made for the Mediterranean, not for long and open oceans like the Pacific or the Indian ocean.

View attachment 48194
Cavor and Juan Carlos operating together.
https://flic.kr/p/mDPZ7H
So are we looking at a 40,000-65,000t carrier? Korean CVX or QE class? 1.5-2.0 squadrons? How does such a program come about? Where does the crew come from? The pilots? Where does the budget come from? Which service is spear heading this? Where is the political support?

Or are we looking at something more like a 3rd LHD replacing choules, 0.5-1.0 Squadron F-35b's (replacing the Shornets) and embarking a small number ad hoc and still primary focusing on land based aircraft. Combined with an increase in our ASW capability with additional Romeos. Utilizing existing training, logistics, procurement etc. While at the same time further supporting our amphibious and HDAR/non war capability.

Thanks for posting the imagery.
I would agree that the hangar load out is overly "generous" and probably not realistic even as an aircraft transport, yet alone as a functioning aircraft carrier.
From what I understand you could get 6 F35s inline within the length of the hanger space with a helicopter parked next to each aircraft.
Exception would be in the vicinity of the vehicle ramp.
Suggest within the hanger / vehicle deck a total of 6 x F35s + 3/4 medium sized helicopters.
Flight deck should accommodate three F35B's both forward and aft of the starboard Island superstructure for a total of six aircraft.
As a rough guide two helicopters should fit within the foot print of the F35b.
Ships aircraft numbers and types will depend on priority's.
Competition with vehicles in the garage space should be taken into consideration.
For a aviation centric mission 12 F35B's and four helicopters should not be unrealistic.
This compliment would leave all lifts and flight operations area to port uninterrupted by aircraft.
For other Aircraft / vehicle combinations take your pick.

My understanding is the Hanger / vehicle deck, plus both lifts, plus the flight deck are already suitable for the size and weight of the F35B.
Heat treating the flight deck and approach systems need to be addressed.
Aviation fuel and munition capacity I cannot say.
I think the Juan Carlos has about 800t of aviation fuel . This seems on the light side and about half of what Cavour runs with for flight operations.
Could this be addressed?

Many a conflict has been influenced by modest numbers of aviation platforms; both fixed and rotary.

Again not many naval nations could deploy even this modest aviation compliment.
The ADF could and suggest we have both the history and geography to justify the investment.


Regards S

 

[ngatimozart]

What I feel is important however is to have the conversation.

The subject is too important to be dismissed as some fan boy fantasy fleets stuff.
Yes it is a major undertaking in capital and training.
Yes it MAY / MAY NOT compromise what can be accommodated aboard the LHD's.
It is however always about what it adds to the ADF, not what it takes.

That is the conversation.

Cheers

Regards S

"It is however always about what it adds to the ADF, not what it takes."

That my son is not what it's about. I think you are becoming target fixated and need to back the bus up. You have to understand that adding a new capability must not be at the cost of reducing the availability of, or the deletion of an equally required existing capability. In this case you are suggesting bringing in a new possible single service capability at the expensive of a purple capability.

So forget about platforms, go back to the beginning and answer the questions that I posed:

1. Is such a capability required by the ADF?
   1. If so why? And,
   2. Conversely if not why not?
2. What are the actual advantages and disadvantages for Australia to have such a capability?
3. Since such a capability is not seen by the government as necessary at the moment, is it foreseeable that this position will change?
   1. If so, why?
   2. If so, when?

When you have honestly answered those, then see what you come up with.

 

[ADMk2]

Nice summation and questions on the F35B subject.
Obviously I fall in the yes camp.
I have already given some but not all the reasons for my opinion.

What I feel is important however is to have the conversation.

The subject is too important to be dismissed as some fan boy fantasy fleets stuff.
Yes it is a major undertaking in capital and training.
Yes it MAY / MAY NOT compromise what can be accommodated aboard the LHD's.
It is however always about what it adds to the ADF, not what it takes.

That is the conversation.

Cheers

Regards S

You wouldn’t talk about acquiring any capability if it didn’t add to the ADF, conversely despite the apparently generous allocation of funding ADF currently enjoys, such a major undertaking as developing from scratch a new carrier capability for the ADF is way beyond any funding allocation granted to the ADF since HMAS Sydney and Melbourne were carriers…

It isn’t just the platforms, the ships and aircraft, though they would be incredibly expensive. Anyone who says it would be $50m per LHD has no idea of relevant ADF costings. JPALS alone costs the USN $10m a piece for instance… They would charge us a LOT more…

But the manning requirement would be horrendous. Finding the numbers would be hard, sustaining it would cost a fortune…

And none of this addresses the critical point, if this huge amount of funding, available new ADF positions and sustainment were suddenly available for capability enhancement, is a carrier capability really the best way to employ these resources?

We acquire this carrier for arguments sake and gain an improved fleet air defence capability. At one place, for part of the year…

We still have limited to no ballistic missile defence capability for our fleet and none at all for our deployed forces or homeland. We have only a slightly improved land attack strike capability, in one place for a limited amount of availability… We have no long ranged combat search and rescue capability, nor a long ranged high speed special forces insertion capability and none of our domestic military bases are hardened against attack in any way whatsoever. Our entire RAAC capability can barely match a pair of US Armoured Brigade Combat Teams in ALL vehicles, not to even bother mentioning we are about 100 tanks shy of them, even with the recent expansion…

These are just a couple of issues, off the top of my head… Even if this magical pot of money and people existed, how much capability are we prepared to forgoe to acquire it? How much of a lack of capability in other areas, does it offset?

 

[Stampede]

"It is however always about what it adds to the ADF, not what it takes."

That my son is not what it's about. I think you are becoming target fixated and need to back the bus up. You have to understand that adding a new capability must not be at the cost of reducing the availability of, or the deletion of an equally required existing capability. In this case you are suggesting bringing in a new possible single service capability at the expensive of a purple capability.

So forget about platforms, go back to the beginning and answer the questions that I posed:

1. Is such a capability required by the ADF?
   1. If so why? And,
   2. Conversely if not why not?
2. What are the actual advantages and disadvantages for Australia to have such a capability?
3. Since such a capability is not seen by the government as necessary at the moment, is it foreseeable that this position will change?
   1. If so, why?
   2. If so, when?

When you have honestly answered those, then see what you come up with.

Thanks Ngatimozart
I'll reflect on what you and ADMk2 suggest.
Ill add one thing and that's the "ego / big dick" aspect of "Prestige " military capabilities such as an Aircraft carrier.
Looking at those nations with carriers you could certainly beg the question as to why some have gone down that path given as discussed the capital investment such a capability requires and what potentially is forgone.

I want to make clear my view has always been based on the utility of need. It's not an acquisition of ego.

While you and others may disagree with my initial suggestion I'm open to the criticism and fine with the questions.
Like many on DT I'll keep doing my homework.
I'm wearing my big boy pants today and can appreciate others having a difference of view.
As always value constructive engagement.

Cheers to all


Regards S

 

[ngatimozart]

@Stampede I know you better than to suggest that ego was behind you advocating shipborne fast jets for the ADF. I realise that your advocation is for the right reasons, and so it should be. However I will draw the line at suggestions that the ADF field Imperial Star Destroyers.

 

[vonnoobie]

Just spit balling here so apologies if it goes off into fantasy (not my intention) but potentially instead of trying for a full on carrier that would have limited availability annually or decrease/savage our sea lift capabilities could a flight of fixed wing UAV's be operated from the LHD's? Not perfect I know but would be something rather then nothing with out harming our sea lift abilities to a detrimental degree (or so I would hope).

 

[ADMk2]

Just spit balling here so apologies if it goes off into fantasy (not my intention) but potentially instead of trying for a full on carrier that would have limited availability annually or decrease/savage our sea lift capabilities could a flight of fixed wing UAV's be operated from the LHD's? Not perfect I know but would be something rather then nothing with out harming our sea lift abilities to a detrimental degree (or so I would hope).

Depends what you mean by flight, and fixed wing UAV’s? The LHD’s don’t and probably never will have arresting capabilities as far as I know, so anything that takes off from them will have to land vertically, or be caught in some kind of landing device, ie: ScanEagle. That’s why they are restricted presently to rotors only. In future, tilt-rotors may well become more common, so something approaching a fixed wing type capability may well be feasible and may operate from the LHD’s.

There is a precedent for this, as Ospreys have “operated” from the Canberra Class, though how we would operate them long term is something I suspect no-one has looked at very much, with no such acquisition on the horizon any time soon.

I suppose the best answer available at present is “maybe” with RAN’s current ”light” maritime based UAV likely to operate off the Canberra Class at some point, but these are relatively small ISR only UAV’s, that will also be operating off Arafura Class OPV’s, to give an indication of size and relative capability…

Anything more than that I suspect, would be helo based (ie: similar to FireScout) in the short term, with considerable thought required about the pros and cons of operating some sort of rolling take off / vertical landing UAV and all that would entail, before any such project was planned. UAV technology would probably need to come a long way too…

 

[buffy9]

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

There appears to be a lot of war rhetoric coming out of government atm. Something to do with a new DEFMIN, a change in government policy, Anzac Day or something more concerning?

It'd be a great deal more re-assuring to hear something from the CDF or Defence in general at the moment with regards to such talk. Though I suspect under current circumstances it may just be shut down as political...

 

[vonnoobie]

Depends what you mean by flight, and fixed wing UAV’s? The LHD’s don’t and probably never will have arresting capabilities as far as I know, so anything that takes off from them will have to land vertically, or be caught in some kind of landing device, ie: ScanEagle. That’s why they are restricted presently to rotors only. In future, tilt-rotors may well become more common, so something approaching a fixed wing type capability may well be feasible and may operate from the LHD’s.

There is a precedent for this, as Ospreys have “operated” from the Canberra Class, though how we would operate them long term is something I suspect no-one has looked at very much, with no such acquisition on the horizon any time soon.

I suppose the best answer available at present is “maybe” with RAN’s current ”light” maritime based UAV likely to operate off the Canberra Class at some point, but these are relatively small ISR only UAV’s, that will also be operating off Arafura Class OPV’s, to give an indication of size and relative capability…

Anything more than that I suspect, would be helo based (ie: similar to FireScout) in the short term, with considerable thought required about the pros and cons of operating some sort of rolling take off / vertical landing UAV and all that would entail, before any such project was planned. UAV technology would probably need to come a long way too…

Basically wait and see though your reply did get me looking and the Bell V-247 might fit such a role, even better if the US does end up fielding it.

Thanks for the reply

 

[Stampede]

@Stampede I know you better than to suggest that ego was behind you advocating shipborne fast jets for the ADF. I realise that your advocation is for the right reasons, and so it should be. However I will draw the line at suggestions that the ADF field Imperial Star Destroyers.

May the 4th is tomorrow Obi Wan
The Star destroyers will have to wait another day.


Cheers S

 

[t68]

View attachment 48192
Its 20 AV8 Harriers, in the hangar, and its ferry only. (View topic - F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft carrier - F-35 Variants and Missions). Based off the original image by Bazan what is now Navantia created long ago back when it was the BPE and before it was in the water, trying to push the project through. While the F-35B and the harrier are of similar size they aren't exactly the same. I doubt 20 harriers would ever even be ferried in a JC1 design, I would bet physically you wouldn't be able to, and when it comes to F-35's its going to be significantly less. Some people then claim 32 with another 12 on the deck, again, this is not a useable number, this is "in theory" napkin calculation, ferry, too many aircraft operations could not occur with this many aircraft.

Spain has not operated the JC1 with more than 11 Harriers AFAIK, and that would be in full carrier mode. That is a reasonable maximum, and throw in 3-4 helicopters. Think of Spains carrier history, the JC1 "replaced" the Principe de Asturias, a 15,000t "carrier", which was designed around 12 harriers at a light tempo. PdA replaced Dedalo a wwII USS Cabot, 11,000t, which operated with 8 harriers. All three are not optimal full time carriers, but more sea control/escort carriers. But a pocket carrier is all some countries need. Spain intended to operate either in range of airfields, or with other carriers.

View attachment 48193
Spanish actually using the LHD hangar with harriers in a far more logical arrangement

The LHD's aren't designed as a carrier to project power against a peer force either land or sea based. Spain never designed or built them for that purpose. Its for very mild at sea aviation capability, supported by nearby airfields, against an enemy with no/weak naval air capability in that area. They aren't 24/7/365 CAP assets. The deterrent is having aircraft on the deck, not flying regular patrols.

Australia could surge two LHD's, and get something approaching a dedicated carrier, able to support a squadron of aircraft (~12 per ship) at a reasonable tempo, with say 4-8 helicopters. But you have now tied up the entire RAN (surface force, amphibious force, fleet supply, submarines etc) to provide that force, for a short period. You have tied up/negated all the amphibious capability basically of the army too. And the RAAF would be significantly tied to this as well. You will need escorts as well. How much training will we get to practice and operate this kind of short term but intense capability?

I would add that neither the Italians nor the Japanese are intending their carriers to be extraordinary blue water assets. We are talking 12-16 aircraft. Operating with ground bases. Im not sure the investment in a Cavor type ship gets us where we would need to be in terms of carrier power. Cavor is made for the Mediterranean, not for long and open oceans like the Pacific or the Indian ocean.

View attachment 48194
Cavor and Juan Carlos operating together.
https://flic.kr/p/mDPZ7H
So are we looking at a 40,000-65,000t carrier? Korean CVX or QE class? 1.5-2.0 squadrons? How does such a program come about? Where does the crew come from? The pilots? Where does the budget come from? Which service is spear heading this? Where is the political support?

Or are we looking at something more like a 3rd LHD replacing choules, 0.5-1.0 Squadron F-35b's (replacing the Shornets) and embarking a small number ad hoc and still primary focusing on land based aircraft. Combined with an increase in our ASW capability with additional Romeos. Utilizing existing training, logistics, procurement etc. While at the same time further supporting our amphibious and HDAR/non war capability.

People keep thinking I’m advocating that 1x LHD be converted to 100% Fast jet ops which is not the case, could it be yes but not what I’m all about. I’m suggesting is something similar to the USMC where they have 6x Harrier/Lightning. There are numerous examples of a flat top being used aside from its core functions as the US gator fleet have been used as light carrier filled with Harrier just as the US have used a fleet carrier as a helicopter carrier have seen a photo but can’t for the life of me find it again. I think it was for all Urgent Fury but not sure.

From my point of view itscwhat the platform brings to the operational ability of the task group, when operating at full Capacity with the 3 ships instead of a squadron of ARH would it be better haveing a mixed F35/ARH capbilty on hand.

 

[swerve]

The US LHDs are significantly bigger: 26 metres longer, almost 50% greater displacement. They have more scope for carrying a few jets without seriously impairing their ability to carry out their main function adequately.

 

[Todjaeger]

People keep thinking I’m advocating that 1x LHD be converted to 100% Fast jet ops which is not the case, could it be yes but not what I’m all about. I’m suggesting is something similar to the USMC where they have 6x Harrier/Lightning. There are numerous examples of a flat top being used aside from its core functions as the US gator fleet have been used as light carrier filled with Harrier just as the US have used a fleet carrier as a helicopter carrier have seen a photo but can’t for the life of me find it again. I think it was for all Urgent Fury but not sure.

From my point of view itscwhat the platform brings to the operational ability of the task group, when operating at full Capacity with the 3 ships instead of a squadron of ARH would it be better haveing a mixed F35/ARH capbilty on hand.

This is one of those arguments regarding RAN LHD ops which I tend to find irritating, as it apparently keeps getting made in a vacuum.

As others have already pointed out the USN LHD's are significantly larger than the RAN LHD's, and have a greater aviation capability designed and built into them from the start. Consider this, a USN Wasp-class LHD in one of the standard aviation loadouts would have nearly 30 aircraft between fixed wing jets (Harrier or F-35), attack helicopters, and tilt/rotor heavy lift, without taking away from the embarked vehicle component appropriate for a MEU.

For the RAN and ADF though, the situation is different. If the ADF is opting for the RAN LHD's to carry their full vehicle loads (110 vehicles of various sizes and weights) then there is hangar space for eight medium helicopters. OTOH if the RAN opts to go for a heavier aviation loadout, then nearly 60% of the space available to embark vehicles is required to support aviation.

Additionally, it seems as though people keep forgetting that these specific platforms are not going to be operating independently, or in isolation, and would instead be operating as part of an overall warfighting combat system. This means that a hypothetical USN Wasp-class LHD which has six F-35B's operating from it providing close air support, will in turn almost certainly be within the fighter and sensor coverage provided by a CSG. The RAN has no such equivalent capability.

 

[TheRealist]

The obvious solution to these issues is to purchase a third (and dare I say a fourth) Canberra class. A costly solution but in these interesting times perhaps not out of the realm of possibility.

 

[Todjaeger]

The obvious solution to these issues is to purchase a third (and dare I say a fourth) Canberra class. A costly solution but in these interesting times perhaps not out of the realm of possibility.

Costly, yes, I would agree that getting a third and especially a fourth LHD would be costly. But to what end? If Australia decided that it wanted or needed additional sealift and/or amphibious capability, then perhaps an additional LHD or two would be sensible. However, if the purchase were to be made so that extra/additional aviation capability could be put to sea, then I would have to argue against such a purchase.

Short of some significant redesign work, the LHD's are and would remain limited in their ability to support and sustain certain types of aviation operations. If people are really set on the RAN FAA resuming fast jet ops at sea from the deck of a notional aircraft carrier, they should campaign for that to their local politicians so that the defence budget could get enough of an increase to do a proper job of it. Keep in mind that one would be talking about billions of AUD$ and years of work to accomplish such a goal.

 

[spoz]

The continued rehashing of what is at the moment and for the foreseeable future an impossible pipe dream, and one which it does not appear to be shared anywhere within Government, Defence, the ADF or even Navy is becoming quite boring. There are no plans for a third Canberra, that's not what was in the FSP, much less a fourth! Would we, the old carrier sailors, like to be back in the carrier game? Sure! Is there even the slightest possibility? Now, and as far as can be realistically seen into the future, no. So what's the point in discussing it over and over with basically the discussion running the same course? Bring up this subject has been banned for some time on the RAN thread; maybe it should be here, too, for all our sanity!

 

[t68]

This is one of those arguments regarding RAN LHD ops which I tend to find irritating, as it apparently keeps getting made in a vacuum.

As others have already pointed out the USN LHD's are significantly larger than the RAN LHD's, and have a greater aviation capability designed and built into them from the start. Consider this, a USN Wasp-class LHD in one of the standard aviation loadouts would have nearly 30 aircraft between fixed wing jets (Harrier or F-35), attack helicopters, and tilt/rotor heavy lift, without taking away from the embarked vehicle component appropriate for a MEU.

For the RAN and ADF though, the situation is different. If the ADF is opting for the RAN LHD's to carry their full vehicle loads (110 vehicles of various sizes and weights) then there is hangar space for eight medium helicopters. OTOH if the RAN opts to go for a heavier aviation loadout, then nearly 60% of the space available to embark vehicles is required to support aviation.

Additionally, it seems as though people keep forgetting that these specific platforms are not going to be operating independently, or in isolation, and would instead be operating as part of an overall warfighting combat system. This means that a hypothetical USN Wasp-class LHD which has six F-35B's operating from it providing close air support, will in turn almost certainly be within the fighter and sensor coverage provided by a CSG. The RAN has no such equivalent capability.

Yes the US LHD are larger and can accommodate the aircraft as a permanent establishment, the conops for the ADF is to act unilaterality are as part of a coalition, the ADF LHD's have no aircraft permanently part of the LHD establishment its all about the risk and operational factor for aircraft deployed. Peopled need to start thinking terms of the UK TAG but on a smaller scale the assets will remain RAAF giving the ADF the abilty to forward deploy under different scenarios one option is self deployment using AAR another option is via the LHD

The US declined to have direct support to the ADF in the first few days the Americans expected the ADF to act independently which might be also the case in the future, having the ability to accept different types of aircraft in direct support organically should in my view be a priority, not going to be a good look if the task group was in-transit and had taken a hit because the RAAF could not keep a coverage over the task group, the whole point of a submarine force in limited numbers is to have red force use more logistics to counter, same could be said of a few F35 on a LHD red forces would have to think again. no one is expecting it to function as a fleet carrier but it should have assets available to it to achieve mission success in different levels of threat against it.after all it is a high value target

 

[t68]

The continued rehashing of what is at the moment and for the foreseeable future an impossible pipe dream, and one which it does not appear to be shared anywhere within Government, Defence, the ADF or even Navy is becoming quite boring. There are no plans for a third Canberra, that's not what was in the FSP, much less a fourth! Would we, the old carrier sailors, like to be back in the carrier game? Sure! Is there even the slightest possibility? Now, and as far as can be realistically seen into the future, no. So what's the point in discussing it over and over with basically the discussion running the same course? Bring up this subject has been banned for some time on the RAN thread; maybe it should be here, too, for all our sanity!

And that is a form of censorship, if you don't like it don't respond to it. but banning discussion what's the point of the forum then?

might was pack up and call it a day

 

[spoz]

No, it's not. It's a plea to cut out the fantasy fleet stuff and return to the purpose of this forum which is the serious discussion of Defence issues.