Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

OK I will say it ................ What about the Sea Harriers! Bit of an ophan though.

SHARs are pretty much a write off by now. And would need a new lightweight composite wing to be useable in South East Asia at combat payloads.

I also suspect the AV-8B+ will be pretty shagged as well

Yeah. Plus the big problem with any Harrier solution is the manual landing system. Which is basically the hardest on pilot competency for any naval fighter. Back in the 80s it would have been little problem for the RAN to convert to after years of landing Skyhawks and Trackers on the little deck of a light fleet carrier. But as a start up naval fixed wing force you’d hate to have to learn Harrier landing. F-35B has an automatic landing system which makes it much easier.

 

[t68]

Well theirs always Principe de Asturias and her harrier fleet, arcording to this article their is a bit of interst in her and that includes the Indonesia.

Wonder if that would cause a kerfufil in Canberra.

Several countries interested in buying ex-Spanish Navy Aircraft Carrier Principe de Asturias

 

[StingrayOZ]

F35 B has to be the pick. While higher initial purchase, life costs, training costs logistics, upgrades would beat it hands down etc. How many harriers have been lost, isn't it one of the highest risk aircraft you can get?

You give little away from a F-35A or C with a B. For low risk, I wonder how much the spanish could buy the cavour designs with a spain/Aus build for but fit out with canberraish class specs.

I wouldn't be surprised if the primary role of the LHD is humanitarian support too. Don't feel too bad, that doesn't mean it can't perform a very valuable function. Just be glad we got something.

Now if only you could write off the carrier as humanitarian support..

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re the HMAS Choules video, I find it sad that the comment from Commander Papp was that the primary role of the ship is humanitarian support.

The primary reason why Choules was fast tracked through - and using a non traditional procurement process driven by the Minister was due to a notion that RAN was deficient in HADR assets and that the demise of "bill and ben" (Kanimbla/Manoora) would leave the ADO with a hole in the "big ship with decent C2 capability" bucket

 

[StevoJH]

SHARs are pretty much a write off by now. And would need a new lightweight composite wing to be useable in South East Asia at combat payloads.

Fairly sure the SHARs got sold to the USMC for use as spare parts, or was that just the GR.9/9A's?

 

[StobieWan]

I may be horribly wrong but the GR9/7's were sold - the SHAR's are still at RNAS Yeovilton, and for at least a while, some were held in taxiable condition to assist in training deck crew.

The Indians had a look at buying them but backed off when they realised they couldn't get AIM120 to go with them. I've no idea what material condition they'd be in now but "poor" would be a first guess.

 

[Volkodav]

I cant help but imagine a Hyuga or 22DDH fitted with a bow ski jump and roos painted on the funnels rather than a modified JC1. I know its not going to happen but as we already have the LHDs why not go for something to dramatically increase the RANs ASW capability that can also operate F-35Bs and even a helibourne MCM capability.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I cant help but imagine a Hyuga or 22DDH fitted with a bow ski jump and roos painted on the funnels rather than a modified JC1. I know its not going to happen but as we already have the LHDs why not go for something to dramatically increase the RANs ASW capability that can also operate F-35Bs and even a helibourne MCM capability.

Modifying a LHD to carrier would be pretty extensive. While not a ship designer (and I know there people who are on here), doubling the power plant, ensuring hull works at 30kt, increasing fuel bunkerage by 1000 or 2000t are no small modifications. Then you have generally a not very optimal hanger space that you have live with. Lots of modification, lots of risk. While the Japanese and Koreans are certainly capable, they haven't had proven carrier experience. I would love to see what they could put together.

Cavour however is in the water now. Designed by a country that has carrier experience for decades, Spain too has extensive operational carrier experience. Cavour (or a Cavour+ with a 10m plug) would offer IOC, as you could put 100 sailors and aviators on one today to start training. While Spain wouldn't have a ready to go inservice carrier design, they do have a carrier and extensive carrier design experience and we have established a joint build program with them. Spain will build a carrier, so upgrades and training can be shared.

Cavour with a 10m plug would allow greater endurance and range.

If Australia ever went down a carrier route, it would all be about quick IOC and lowest risk. Meaning someone with a carrier, with extensive carrier design experience. Even then, things can go wrong (France and CDG for example).

IMO the best would be the UK. Lowest risk, most experience, most carriers, easiest fit. Although I don't know how the RAAF would feel basing its entire fast air on a ship.

If we could get the money together for a 3rd LHD, then the cost difference between a 3rd LHD and a light carrier is fairly small. Cavour type ship has fairly extensive amphib capabilities so could act as an amphib particularly if deployed with a LHD or a Choules. The carrier would focus on air deployment while the LHD could use its dock to focus on sea deployment. Cavour has done humanitarian duties in Haiti so its not theoretical capability.

We need a 3rd ship to provide amphib capabilities to meet the original goal for an amphibious landing. With the US seriously cutting back capability and forces, the additional amphibious and protection a carrier would provide it would seem to be sensible to look at this once the first LHD is operational. But then again we may get another civilian Skanky Burger ship to provide all our amphibious needs with 1 roof mounted helipad.

 

[mankyle]

I cant help but imagine a Hyuga or 22DDH fitted with a bow ski jump and roos painted on the funnels rather than a modified JC1. I know its not going to happen but as we already have the LHDs why not go for something to dramatically increase the RANs ASW capability that can also operate F-35Bs and even a helibourne MCM capability.

Speaking of the 22DDH, she has been launched today.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT-9maM-Pks&feature=player_embedded"]å¹³æˆ22年度計画護衛艦"ã„ãšã‚‚"進水ï¼/22DDH "IZUMO"(DDH183) launching - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[swerve]

Modifying a LHD to carrier would be pretty extensive. While not a ship designer (and I know there people who are on here), doubling the power plant, ensuring hull works at 30kt, increasing fuel bunkerage by 1000 or 2000t are no small modifications. Then you have generally a not very optimal hanger space that you have live with. Lots of modification, lots of risk. While the Japanese and Koreans are certainly capable, they haven't had proven carrier experience. I would love to see what they could put together.....

Hyūga, Ise & Izumo (the name for 22DDH - she was launched & named today) aren't LHDs. They don't need any modifications to do 30 knots - it's their design speed, & Hyūga & Ise have demonstrated they can do it.

Hyūga & Ise have no amphibious capability at all, except perhaps by squeezing troops into the hangar. They're ASW helicopter carriers & flotilla leaders. None of these ships has a dock. IIRC, the transport capacity of Izumo uses the hangar. Absolutely, definitely, not LHDs.

I don't know if Izumo has a deck strong & heat resistant enough for F-35B vertical landings, or lifts which can take F-35B, but she's the same size as Cavour (& with about the same installed power). & with a ski-jump (a minor modification) an F-35B could easily take off from her.

 

[hairyman]

To say Japan has no experience with carriers is incorrect. How do you suppose the Japanese planes got here to bomb Darwin and Broome? It probably has had more carrier wartime experience than any other nation except America. Admittedly it was quite some time ago.

 

[t68]

To say Japan has no experience with carriers is incorrect. How do you suppose the Japanese planes got here to bomb Darwin and Broome? It probably has had more carrier wartime experience than any other nation except America. Admittedly it was quite some time ago.

All the Institutional Knowledge will have gone. Australia is in the same boat when it comes to carrier ops, but their may be a couple around who served on the old Melbourne but they would certantly not have up to date knowledge unless we get some ex RN pers who could help us/them(Japan)

 

[StingrayOZ]

Hyūga, Ise & Izumo (the name for 22DDH - she was launched & named today) aren't LHDs. They don't need any modifications to do 30 knots - it's their design speed, & Hyūga & Ise have demonstrated they can do it.

Hyūga & Ise have no amphibious capability at all, except perhaps by squeezing troops into the hangar. They're ASW helicopter carriers & flotilla leaders. None of these ships has a dock. IIRC, the transport capacity of Izumo uses the hangar. Absolutely, definitely, not LHDs.

I don't know if Izumo has a deck strong & heat resistant enough for F-35B vertical landings, or lifts which can take F-35B, but she's the same size as Cavour (& with about the same installed power). & with a ski-jump (a minor modification) an F-35B could easily take off from her.

Indeed. There would be a big difference converting a JC1 to a carrier to converting Izumo.

JC1 you need 3 extra LM2500, go from pod to shaft? (do pods do 30kt+) dock removal, over the edge elevator etc. Your better off starting from scratch.

Izumo looks exactly what you would build if you weren't building a carrier but were infact building one. It has the power, the length, much larger deck area (6 m wider). Nice big flat front deck. Edge lift right off the side. While it doesn't have a jump it is longer than JC1. Infact its about as long as a us amphib, which will have no problems launching F-35B loaded without a jump. I would assume it has the fuel bunkerage and weapons stores too. Side profile it certainly looks like a very neat carrier. Japan isn't really in the business of building arms for other nations either, (although its possible) and Australia doesn't really have a tight link with them yet. Japan had huge carrier experience 60 years ago, and is certainly able to bring itself back into the game, but its a development experiment.

But they aren't currently operating a carrier, nor do they have fixed wing aircraft operating off it. With the spanish, Italian and UK experience is immediate. Cavour evolved with the experience they had from Garibaldi, PoW evolved from what they knew about the invincibles and with US input, spain does operate a carrier and has built carrier for other nations.

Given any time frame, if we were going down the carrier road (which I don't think we are) more options will develop. If in 5 or 10 years time Japan has 2 operational carriers with airwings and is willing to build with us, then that would be a different situation. But there are two big hurdles to cross there.

 

[ASSAIL]

Indeed. There would be a big difference converting a JC1 to a carrier to converting Izumo.
JC1 you need 3 extra LM2500, go from pod to shaft? (do pods do 30kt+) dock removal, over the edge elevator etc. Your better off starting from scratch.

Why the need for 30kts+? JC1 already has the capacity to operate 35B's and the RAN would not be considering large numbers of them, it would be a minimal capacity (6 or 8 plus helos would be max). HMAS Melbourne maintained a CAP with 4 x A4's.

The whole point is commonality of propulsion and all other on board systems, the cost saving in being able to use the just completed training facilities and the flexibility during peacetime ops. It should be possible to increase hangar space whilst decreasing vehicle lanes/deck heights. JC1 already has aviation fuel and magazine capacity which should be adjustable.

Getting any govt to fund a carrier is hard enough but if you call it a modified LHD ( look at the JMSDF example in naming and perception) you may have small chance of success.

I certainly believe that other options such as the Izumo would be better but the reality of getting anything at all would favour the JC1 option.

 

[protoplasm]

Indeed. There would be a big difference converting a JC1 to a carrier to converting Izumo.

JC1 you need 3 extra LM2500, go from pod to shaft? (do pods do 30kt+) dock removal, over the edge elevator etc. Your better off starting from scratch.

You don't need 4 LM2500 to run a JC1 based STOVL carrier. You don't need to go at 30+knots, and you aren't running EMALS or anything else that'll need an enormous amount of electricity.

The only real question is can you optimise the volume inside a JC1 based hull to suit fast jet operations, maintenance and repairs. If you can, the economies of scale from all the common parts will help lower the operating costs.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Im sure there are those who can explain why most carriers are faster than most amphibious ships. With greater speed you are effectively adding speed to the STOVL aircraft, meaning it can carry more and take off easier (there are also landing issues with CTOL), it also means you are a harder target to hit. No a STOVL carrier does not have to go 30kt but it would be a feature worth considering.

To go 30kt, you need lots of power, hence why carriers like the Japanese and Italians have much bigger plants than say the JC1 design.

Fuel bunkerage is also very important. I did the calculations based on whats publicly available (somewhere in this thread?), and something like 2 weeks of light operations. The F35 uses lots of fuel, compared to say a harrier which is much lighter and has far less powerful engines. So yes, for around 2 weeks you can function as a mini carrier with a handful of aircraft.

It would be interesting what the Spanish would provide as a carrier design. JC1 with just larger fuel stores, or clean design. JC1 would cost a lot less to operate than other competing designs.

With a oiler or two JC1 you have longer operational capability. I believe the spanish fitted their LHD with more refuelling capability than ours will have.

 

[t68]

. I believe the spanish fitted their LHD with more refuelling capability than ours will have.

I imagine that's because of the need to operate as a fast jet carrier, I ws under the impression the only changes were the island structure everything below should be identical

 

[ASSAIL]

I imagine that's because of the need to operate as a fast jet carrier, I ws under the impression the only changes were the island structure everything below should be identical

I can remember seeing the differences listed but now can't find that doc.
The RAN ships are built to Lloyds Naval Rules not commercial rules as per JC1, the hospital/triage area is bigger and more capable, accommodation areas reflect RAN standards and whereas JC1 has the gear to refuel other ships, the Canberras can't.
These are some of the changes but perhaps the most significant ones are the smaller aviation fuel and magazine capacity in Canberra.
JC1 was designed to operate up to 30 aircraft, depending on mix of AV8B/Seaking/Chook/V22 so the changes are significant below the flight deck as well as a totally different island outfit.

 

[alexsa]

Indeed. There would be a big difference converting a JC1 to a carrier to converting Izumo.

JC1 you need 3 extra LM2500, go from pod to shaft? (do pods do 30kt+) dock removal, over the edge elevator etc. Your better off starting from scratch.

Izumo looks exactly what you would build if you weren't building a carrier but were infact building one. It has the power, the length, much larger deck area (6 m wider). Nice big flat front deck. Edge lift right off the side. While it doesn't have a jump it is longer than JC1. Infact its about as long as a us amphib, which will have no problems launching F-35B loaded without a jump. I would assume it has the fuel bunkerage and weapons stores too. Side profile it certainly looks like a very neat carrier. Japan isn't really in the business of building arms for other nations either, (although its possible) and Australia doesn't really have a tight link with them yet. Japan had huge carrier experience 60 years ago, and is certainly able to bring itself back into the game, but its a development experiment.

But they aren't currently operating a carrier, nor do they have fixed wing aircraft operating off it. With the spanish, Italian and UK experience is immediate. Cavour evolved with the experience they had from Garibaldi, PoW evolved from what they knew about the invincibles and with US input, spain does operate a carrier and has built carrier for other nations.

Given any time frame, if we were going down the carrier road (which I don't think we are) more options will develop. If in 5 or 10 years time Japan has 2 operational carriers with airwings and is willing to build with us, then that would be a different situation. But there are two big hurdles to cross there.

If the JC1 hull form was to be used (IF they have a design) you would not change to shafts. If this was desired you would look at a different design. To be honest I quite like the Cavour.


Pods can provide considerable installed power so I am not sure whay you wouel add three LM2500sto the GT and DA's already installed. Increasing the capcity of the DA's would provide additional power to the ship services which includes propulsion. This would permit the use of more powerful pods. Pods hav had some issues but are now being found on ice breakers, cruise ships as well as 'some' warships and auxiliaries.


Cannot see why the RAN would look beyond 25 to 27 knots tops given the sustained speeds of the escorts.

 

[Volkodav]

Speaking of the 22DDH, she has been launched today.

å¹³æˆ22年度計画è*·è¡›è‰¦"ã„ãšã‚‚"進水ï¼/22DDH "IZUMO"(DDH183) launching - YouTube

I didn't know that, a bit of a coincidence. Love the look of it and how they call it a Destroyer. Seriously something like that would be ideal for Australia, too bad about the political class we are lumbered with.