Fantasy RAN thread (Carriers only)
- Thread starter Anthony_B_78
- Start date
- Status
KC130 and kc30 can refuel F-35B.
I'm not sure basing all the refuelling assets on a small carrier is ideal. You are then operating another type of aircraft, needing to launch and recover it, etc. Draining already limited capability. More deck, more hangar, more crew, more fuel etc.
In Australia's case, I would see E7/P8 and KC130 operating along side a carrier, possibly with MC-55A. While not organic to the task force, these are long ranged aircraft, able to loiter for ~8-16 hrs at a time at range, and can be crewed with multiple pilots and refuelled in the air. While not organic with the fleet, I struggle to see where we would need to provide full spectrum capability more than ~10000km from a friendly airbase, by ourselves. We have enough of these platforms to maintain a continuous rotation of aircraft indefinitely. These platforms could operate from mainland Australia or remote bases like Christmas Island or Norfolk Island etc. If operating from Butterworth, coverage all up through Asia north Indian ocean etc.
Its the fighters that are short ranged, and require a massive logistics focus to sustain any sort of air presence. Requiring squadrons for individual unit providing reliable coverage. While heavy strike packages could be arranged to come in from proper land bases, its the presence part of the calculation that is very difficult to do, particularly in a defensive role.
As an organic flight, of say 6-8 aircraft, they could be armed with say ~4x spear3 each in a stealth configuration (24-32 missiles). With a range of ~150-200km beyond the max flight range, does give a pretty long armed strike range with reasonable saturation for an organic force, and can rearm and strike basically continuously able to deplete even a large ship defensive missile loadout fairly quickly. With minimal compromises in low observables JSM or other heavier/longer range weapons could be added. If the war is depleting stocks of missiles, guided gravity weapons still offer formidable standoff well away from the fleet. From ~2028.
The advantage of a carrier is there is less pressure on building larger and larger surface combatants with larger and larger missile loadouts. Even with long range munitions, in grey situations, presence and manned platforms are everything. In theory a P8 shouldn't be flying within visual range of a opposing fighter, but currently in grey operations, fighters are dumping chaff into P8 engines.
If there is no big war, but a continued and extended grey regional competition, then having great organic presence in the region is likely to be a huge advantage.
Where I guess the value of a carrier is if that sort of threat and capability is something the ADF sees in our region and where we want to operate. While the US has great carrier power, it isn't often seen locally down with our region, and it is easily monopolized and prioritized elsewhere.
I'm not sure basing all the refuelling assets on a small carrier is ideal. You are then operating another type of aircraft, needing to launch and recover it, etc. Draining already limited capability. More deck, more hangar, more crew, more fuel etc.
In Australia's case, I would see E7/P8 and KC130 operating along side a carrier, possibly with MC-55A. While not organic to the task force, these are long ranged aircraft, able to loiter for ~8-16 hrs at a time at range, and can be crewed with multiple pilots and refuelled in the air. While not organic with the fleet, I struggle to see where we would need to provide full spectrum capability more than ~10000km from a friendly airbase, by ourselves. We have enough of these platforms to maintain a continuous rotation of aircraft indefinitely. These platforms could operate from mainland Australia or remote bases like Christmas Island or Norfolk Island etc. If operating from Butterworth, coverage all up through Asia north Indian ocean etc.
Its the fighters that are short ranged, and require a massive logistics focus to sustain any sort of air presence. Requiring squadrons for individual unit providing reliable coverage. While heavy strike packages could be arranged to come in from proper land bases, its the presence part of the calculation that is very difficult to do, particularly in a defensive role.
As an organic flight, of say 6-8 aircraft, they could be armed with say ~4x spear3 each in a stealth configuration (24-32 missiles). With a range of ~150-200km beyond the max flight range, does give a pretty long armed strike range with reasonable saturation for an organic force, and can rearm and strike basically continuously able to deplete even a large ship defensive missile loadout fairly quickly. With minimal compromises in low observables JSM or other heavier/longer range weapons could be added. If the war is depleting stocks of missiles, guided gravity weapons still offer formidable standoff well away from the fleet. From ~2028.
The advantage of a carrier is there is less pressure on building larger and larger surface combatants with larger and larger missile loadouts. Even with long range munitions, in grey situations, presence and manned platforms are everything. In theory a P8 shouldn't be flying within visual range of a opposing fighter, but currently in grey operations, fighters are dumping chaff into P8 engines.
If there is no big war, but a continued and extended grey regional competition, then having great organic presence in the region is likely to be a huge advantage.
Where I guess the value of a carrier is if that sort of threat and capability is something the ADF sees in our region and where we want to operate. While the US has great carrier power, it isn't often seen locally down with our region, and it is easily monopolized and prioritized elsewhere.
This article on the project Vixen suggests more than just aerial re- fuelling ,I'm not sure what or if this capability could be introduced to the Canberra class it does "appear" to be stealthy and have the ability for unmanned combat a uav such as this with Spear 3 or other munitions might be feasible certainly much cheaper than a new carrier
What will the Royal Navy’s new Vixen jets look like? (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)
What will the Royal Navy’s new Vixen jets look like? (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)
Ok its that F35B conversation.
Does the ADF need the attributes of this plane to operate both off land and at sea?
First of all I don't have a crystal ball to inform me as to the next conflict and therefore what specific capabilities we should focus on.
I can however reflect on history and see what we have needed in the past.
We have engaged in HADR , small , medium and large global conflicts across the Land, Sea and in the Air over a broad range of geography.
We have done this on many occasions.
"So Ouch" - we need to bit of everything!
So regarding aviation and not wanting to fight the next war the same as the past, my first question is do manned aircraft [ Fixed and rotatory wing ] have a future?
The answer currently seems be yes as suggested by the current investment in these platforms by both the ADF and other professional defence forces around the world
So then does the F35B have a place within the ADF.
Well it does have the limitation of not being able to fly as far as its sibling the F35A, or carry as much internally. It is also more expensive.
So are these deal breakers, or just over blow excuses not to buy this Aircraft?
At the end of the day all three of the class; A,B and C are very similar to each other. They are all 5th Gen and very capable
But only one can land vertically, the F35B which is of course it's point of difference. We pay for this attribute!
Does this point of difference, a V/TOL aircraft have a future.
Well given that it is been embraced by many defence forces with a history in this capability and others who want to develop this attribute, it does beg the question, what is stopping the ADF going down this path.
It not history as we have operated a number of Aircraft carriers in the past.
Its not geography, as this region has had some of the largest carrier battles and amphibious exercises conducted in the past.
Its not lack of a vessel, as we have not one but two ships designed from the start to be F35B compatible.
Its not really money as we are a financially rich first world nation that has options!
Its not lack of training as we currently have the second most number of F35A's outside of the US today and are well supported them in both the air and by their Navy at sea.
We are a very professional defence force
So what is the handbrake in putting an F35B on our LHD's.
The LHD's need modifying and this will be too expensive and not worth the investment?
Well I don't actually know the true figures, but investing in anything does need to be justified.
The LHD's were purchased for our priority of amphibious operations and some HADR.
Anything that detracts from this takes away from their core purpose................................................I get this but still have a problem with this mind set.
I reckon we can have our cake and eat it to. The US Navy and US marines may be an example.
The attributes of the F35B could be undertaken by other systems and what specialty they do bring to the fight is not worth the investment for a defence force the size of the ADF.................................Yeah, Maybe / maybe not.
It would be interesting if this F35B / LHD conversation actually exists within the realm of defence.
Have all the questions been asked and dismissed as not worth it: or is this subject somewhat internally political.
Tribes for and against the subject with many who are advocates keeping quiet so as not to alienate senior sirs who see priority's elsewhere.
I don't know the answer,but are open that this F35B / LHD foray may not be for us.
Then again it might be for us but just down the track.
I do find this subject unfinished and wonder what the ADF will look like in another ten years time
Thanks for reading
Cheers S
Does the ADF need the attributes of this plane to operate both off land and at sea?
First of all I don't have a crystal ball to inform me as to the next conflict and therefore what specific capabilities we should focus on.
I can however reflect on history and see what we have needed in the past.
We have engaged in HADR , small , medium and large global conflicts across the Land, Sea and in the Air over a broad range of geography.
We have done this on many occasions.
"So Ouch" - we need to bit of everything!
So regarding aviation and not wanting to fight the next war the same as the past, my first question is do manned aircraft [ Fixed and rotatory wing ] have a future?
The answer currently seems be yes as suggested by the current investment in these platforms by both the ADF and other professional defence forces around the world
So then does the F35B have a place within the ADF.
Well it does have the limitation of not being able to fly as far as its sibling the F35A, or carry as much internally. It is also more expensive.
So are these deal breakers, or just over blow excuses not to buy this Aircraft?
At the end of the day all three of the class; A,B and C are very similar to each other. They are all 5th Gen and very capable
But only one can land vertically, the F35B which is of course it's point of difference. We pay for this attribute!
Does this point of difference, a V/TOL aircraft have a future.
Well given that it is been embraced by many defence forces with a history in this capability and others who want to develop this attribute, it does beg the question, what is stopping the ADF going down this path.
It not history as we have operated a number of Aircraft carriers in the past.
Its not geography, as this region has had some of the largest carrier battles and amphibious exercises conducted in the past.
Its not lack of a vessel, as we have not one but two ships designed from the start to be F35B compatible.
Its not really money as we are a financially rich first world nation that has options!
Its not lack of training as we currently have the second most number of F35A's outside of the US today and are well supported them in both the air and by their Navy at sea.
We are a very professional defence force
So what is the handbrake in putting an F35B on our LHD's.
The LHD's need modifying and this will be too expensive and not worth the investment?
Well I don't actually know the true figures, but investing in anything does need to be justified.
The LHD's were purchased for our priority of amphibious operations and some HADR.
Anything that detracts from this takes away from their core purpose................................................I get this but still have a problem with this mind set.
I reckon we can have our cake and eat it to. The US Navy and US marines may be an example.
The attributes of the F35B could be undertaken by other systems and what specialty they do bring to the fight is not worth the investment for a defence force the size of the ADF.................................Yeah, Maybe / maybe not.
It would be interesting if this F35B / LHD conversation actually exists within the realm of defence.
Have all the questions been asked and dismissed as not worth it: or is this subject somewhat internally political.
Tribes for and against the subject with many who are advocates keeping quiet so as not to alienate senior sirs who see priority's elsewhere.
I don't know the answer,but are open that this F35B / LHD foray may not be for us.
Then again it might be for us but just down the track.
I do find this subject unfinished and wonder what the ADF will look like in another ten years time
Thanks for reading
Cheers S
Thread locked because it has reached it's two week time limit set by @StingrayOZ when he reopened it on 6th Aug 2022.
- Status