Hypothetically, if RAN were to get a small number of F-35B Lightening to use from the new LHD, would they require an AEWAC capability on the LHD too (probably in the form of a helo), or would the Wedgetail be enough to cover this? If they do require additional AEWAC, what form would this take and how many do they need?
Does Australia need an aircraft carrier?
- Thread starter Big-E
- Start date
If it were to happen, the RAN would have to decide what the role would be, e.g. more of a USMC style, where the F-35s are providing CAS or following the Europeans where the F-35s will also be providing CAPs.cherry said:
Both decisions will have an impact on the force mix of any embarked troops. AEW may well be provided by UAVs in the next decade.
I would not be surprised if such UAVs were carries by DDGs to increase the warning of attack and make them less dependant from carriers in certain situations.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I think it's a deadset certainty that VTOL UAV's will be operated from the RAN's AWD's. Perhaps not immediately, but if they weren't in-service by 2015-2017 I'd be amazed.Whiskyjack said:
As to the F-35B's, I think they'd mainly be used for combat air patrols and maritime strike, in a high threat environment. In a lower air threat environment they could be used for strike or CAS missions, but it's widely acknowledged that it's lack of anti-air capability is RAN's greatest weakness, given the well known limitations of surface based radar systems.
Given the limited numbers that could be carried (probably little more than 12 per vessel even IF the amphib capability were sacrificed for the fixed wing air element) I doubt ADF could afford to divert it's limited numbers of aircraft for CAS duties, particularly when there are other ways for RAN to provide fire support for ground forces (NGS, a "loitering missile capability" such as NLOS-LS, if it were to be acquired, or the Tiger ARH's that will be deployed from the LPD's).
The idea that RAN can be completely covered from the air by the RAAF is nonsensical, unless the RAAF were capable of deploying assets to sea WITH the RAN and in the current context this can really only mean the F-35B.
An AWAC capability at sea would truly round out ADF's power projection capability, but I can't see it happening. I'll be surprised (and delighted) if F-35B's are acquired and operated off the LPD's, I almost don't DARE to hope that a helo-borne AWAC capability be acquired...
I would be of the opinion that there isnt going to be one. The wedgetails are for the Airforces/Navy use only and will require AAR. I think for any early warning that this would have to be provided in some way by a carrier battle group consisting of 4-5 frigates and submarines to counter any threat. This would cover the LPD or LPH whatever Australia choses so as to keep the air and sub surface free from threats.
Aussie Digger said:
I think the issue as it stands now is that while a modern warship is capable of hitting an air born target at 100+kms, if the target is at sea level, it can't see it to engage it until it is much closer. The curvature of the earth is the limiting factor. So the ability to have a helo or UAV AEW, will allow for a warship to utilise the full range of its SAMs and even its SSMs.Markus40 said:
So it may be that the F-35b may not be bought, but some form of aircraft AEW that can link into the escorting DDG, would be a formidable force multiplier IMHO.
From another point of veiw, even if we didn't get the f-35B helo based AEWAC systems would be a hugh benefit in respect of fleet support if they were fitted with the appropriate link facility. This would provide early warning for the surface units and targeting info for the AWD and would also assist with surface picture compliation. When combine wiht helo UAV's you wouel have a very good organic survailance capability.cherry said:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
This was to be a primary role of the Super Seasprite Helicopter. It's Telephonics radar system has a powerful air to air mode, capable of detecting cruise/Anti-ship missiles as well as aircraft at significant ranges.alexsa said:
By the simple fact of the altitude's it could reach (compared to the mast of a ship) and it's range it would have been capable of providing very long range targetting data to RAN warships, equipped as it is with Link 11 and soon (if the project continues) Link 16.
The VTOL UAV's will no doubt be used for the same thing, the difference being mainly their loiter time and the greater numbers that should be able to be carried by a ship, equaling greater coverage...
Cootamundra
New Member
Isn't that one of the things the Sprites were meant to do? I thought the idea was that they could enhance the search/surveillance area of the ANZACs...alexsa said:
Agreed but from what I understand there is a world of difference in capability between something like the Sprite and a dedicated AWAC platform like that envisaged for the new EH101 AEW system (I am not proposing that system just using it as an example).Cootamundra said:
A bit like the difference between a AP-3C and the Wedgetail.
I presume you mean the proposed AEW EH101 for the Royal Navy*, since Italy already has EH101 AEW in service. However, they aren't the same. Different radar from that now used by the RN, & different from any proposed for future RN use. Mounted under the fuselage, like the standard search radar of maritime EH101s, but much bigger.alexsa said:
*upgraded its AEW Sea Kings a few years ago with new radars, airframes overhauled, etc., to extend their lives, so new AEW not needed for a while.
Having seen the latest magazine on the NZ Navies Seasprites there was an article that mentioned that our own seasprites have a very limited detection system in place for sea skimmers and cruise missiles. I was amazed to see this as i believed that NZ had the same capability as its counterpart. The Australians.
Aussie Digger said:
Maybe, but once the Australian navy have their Air warefare destroyers with the Spy1 from the information i have they will be able to pick up sea skimmers 200 + miles out. I think the earlier it can be detected the better it will be for the Australian Navy to fire a salvo of Sea sparrows at a range of 30+ miles out. Or have the Phalanx trained in at 3000 meters.
Whiskyjack said:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Curvature of the earth limits your radar detection ranges Markus, hence the need for AWAC's aircraft at all. No ship can detect a sea skimming missile at 200 miles, AFAIK. Happy to be corrected, but with the horizon being roughly 7k's at sea level, the only way to increase your detection range is by raising your mast height. There are practical limits to this though and even AEGIS class radars don't have a 200 mile detection range for surface level threats.Markus40 said:
As to the Seasprites, ours would be much more capable than NZ's, if we could actually get them operating. We purposefully went for a more capable (in theory) design. One that appears so advanced as to be beyond us...
From what the Australian military have been saying is that the seasprite for the Australian Navy were having software problems on all 10 of them and were breaking down as a result. This was leaving the RAN with a $1 Billion debacle on what they should do. Replace them with the sea hawke or try and resolve the current issues with Kaman. After initial investigations it was revealed that a contractor Kaman employed, for the software that went into the Seasprite, found the problem and i understand that the seasprites will now undergo software modifications fOC to have them running again.
Its interesting to see that the 5 Seasprites the RNZN operate didnt have this problem, so from what i understand it was a faulty batch.
Its interesting to see that the 5 Seasprites the RNZN operate didnt have this problem, so from what i understand it was a faulty batch.
Aussie Digger said:
Just to throw something out there guys... Why not use the F-35 itself as the AEW&C?! Although it wouldn't have the coverage of, say, an E-2D, it is self-escorting, has real-time two-way datalinks, is much more responsibve in terms of transit times, and can actually deal with an airborne threat itself rather than having to call something else in.cherry said:
AD - I wish I had your confidence that we will get F-35Bs. The A and B are physically different enough, and would be operated differently enough as to require quite a different logistics chain and engineering skillset. I think it's going to take quite a large sea-change in doctrine and requirements before we see ship-borne combat aircraft wearing Kangaroo roundels again.
Although I remain to be convinced as to its merits, it's a really interesting concept, one which I hope will see more airtime in the coming years!
Magoo
Different software Markus. The two aircraft are so different as to be, well, pretty much different aircraft. NZ went the lower-end, lower risk route, whereas the RAN went the high-end, high risk route. The fact that NZ's SSs have been in service for what, four years now, speaks volumes!Markus40 said:
I can't see Seasprite being operated off the LHDs anyway - it's combat system will be linked into that of the Anzacs, much the same as the Seahawk and the FFGs' systems are linked.
Magoo
Current funding completes the development of an upgrade to the current AN/SPY-1D radar, Engineering Development Model 4B (EDM-4B), to enhance its capability against low cross section sea skimming targets in increasingly more severe electronic countermeasures and in near-land clutter environments. The changes are in the transmitter, signal processor, and radar control computer program. for the ARLEIGH BURKE (DDG 51) class ships Two new efforts will start in FY 1999. First, support for a Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) Program which is developing a common, backfittable theater-wide radar upgrade signal processor to provide affordable theater-wide exoatmospheric discrimination capability. Second, integration of the AN/SPQ-9B radar into the AEGIS Weapon System to improve capability against the advanced low-altitude threat.
I think with the advancement of the Spy1 system that the system will have BTH capabilities, shortly.
I think with the advancement of the Spy1 system that the system will have BTH capabilities, shortly.
Aussie Digger said:
Well, it is speculative to suggest it was different software. I dont understand why you are suggesting that they are different helicopters when they are the same variant. All Kaman helicopters for the RAN and the RNZN came from Kaman and they used the same contractor for the software. I actually think it was a company in S Korea. We got our choppers the same time the RAN were placing their orders for theirs, as the ANZACS were being rolled out.
The Seasprite is a maritime Helo and can operate from any naval platform using its own mission computer and TACO.
The Seasprite is a maritime Helo and can operate from any naval platform using its own mission computer and TACO.
Magoo said:
Same mould line, same drive train, not much else in common. SH-2G(NZ) is a new build helo vs SH-2G(A) being rebuilt from 40+ year old, 10K+ hours SH-2Fs for a start. They have different avionics fits; different crewing requirements; different anti-ship missiles; different torpedoes; different EW systems; different FLIR; different comms etc...Markus40 said:
In summary, the SH-2G(A)'s Integrated Tactical Avionics System designed by Litton (which subsequently went belly-up) is the source of the issues surrounding the delays; a pretty major piece of kit which is not fitted to the RNZAF jets. LtGen Hurley recently said the fixes put in place by Kaman and the new subbie have raised new issues regarding cockpit space and associated ergonomics.
Meanwhile, back on topic...
Magoo
Last edited:
There is a evaluation of sorts in defence today mag of the "persistant third player" this refers to the USS San Antonio built buy Northrop Grumman Ship Systems(NGSS). There are 12 LPD17 ships being built at present, some will contain melted down parts of the World trade centre in the their structure. NGSS is keeping the ADF informed of its progress and although it is not able to launch 6 helos at the same rate as the armaris and navantina, it is able to deliever at a fast and effective rate. Northrop Grumman also claims to be able to come well under the price tag of the other contenders and provide a better defensive capability to the spanish and french as it is more designed for the military market. The LPD17 is the dark horse of the bid, and has little chance over its rivals, with both being shortlisted, but that won't stop Northrop trying, but it would be good to buy Euro for a change.Markus40 said:
The Navatina model shown this year at a confrence was displayed with VTOL aircraft, although ADF is stating that this is not a requirment, still, handy if they change their mind to have it available to convert in a hurry.