Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

Having an angled deck is not really related to what type of JET aircraft are operated off it because all combat jets are likely to require longer runways on return from missions, hence use of arrestors.

it does in the sense that the angled deck allows concurrent launches and greater/easier flexibility in concurrent recovery. Recovery is a moot point if you have a series of arrestor wires strung across its bum There is a reason why the USN designed carriers like the Midway and Forrestal and then kept on growing, they worked out the optimum size for concurrent launch and recovery in a high tempo environment to get "nn" aircraft to target.

Essentially what they allow is to have two decks on one ship to launch more aircraft.

they actually allow 3 (in real terms). higher concurrency and higher ripple rate. Faster launches also means faster clearance of the deck (by assoc) for recovery

Ski-jump on the other hand only assists any type of aircraft being operated in the amount of stores they are able to leave the deck with, assuming a short deck. It just so happens that jets with vectored thrust engines can take greater advantage of this bit of naval architecture then other jets.

stobar aircraft have inherent disadvantages against catobars on measurements like package form up, package to target, optimum cruise speed reached earlier, load out flexibility, thirst, range limitations etc.... so I'm hard pressed to see what real advantages they provide unless the navy who owns them has been decision bound by its countrys coffers.

the main visible advantage of stobar is smaller real estate issues.

pay peanuts - get monkeys.

 

[Tasman]

Having an angled deck is not really related to what type of JET aircraft are operated off it because all combat jets are likely to require longer runways on return from missions, hence use of arrestors.

Essentially what they allow is to have two decks on one ship to launch more aircraft.

As well as what GF said, the angled deck greatly increases safety as an aircraft that 'misses' the wires can lift off and go around for another attempt rather than relying on a crash barrier to prevent it from crashing into aircraft parked on the forward part of the flight deck. If a prop driven plane hit the crash barrier the pilot had an engine between himself and the barrier. If a jet hit a barrier there would be very very little between the pilot and the barrier. :shudder

The alternative of having to strike down aircraft to the hangar before the next one lands would dramatically reduce both sortie time and the size of the airgroup carried.

Safety was perhaps the major driving force behind the development of the angled deck (a British invention BTW). US Essex class carriers that were not fitted with an angled deck were relegated to ASW and LPH roles.

Tas

 

[StingrayOZ]

I still think it would be worthwhile seriously assessing the F-35B's on the LHD. Luckily, this will automatically occur when spain tries to operate the Harriers off it in the not to distant future. It would be a perfect time to look at STOVL and what are the possible benifits. I tend to think the LHD will make a very good platform for these sort of operations.

The other option which is very real is operating the Tigers from the LHD. Which is nothing to be sneezed at. The larger size, weapons lift etc will really come into its own here. Supporting diggers with tigers is a pretty good option.

I don't know why GF is obsessed with all carriers having the capability of Nimitz. A nimitz carrier is proberly more capable than our entire air force excluding stratgic lift (unless the Nimitz is operating C-130's). They would be 4 to 100 times more capable than any other carrier afloat today.

Nimitz and future carriers have reached a sweet spot. They could carry and operate 70+ aircraft in a war time enviroment. They could launch and trap more aircraft than most airports. And the US has a dozen of them.

We don't need to be that efficent or powerful. Just better than anyone else in our region. The only carriers that will be clearly superior to the canberras will be UK CVF's, US carriers, France's and we could have more carriers than UK/France which would make us more flexable.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I don't know why GF is obsessed with all carriers having the capability of Nimitz. A nimitz carrier is proberly more capable than our entire air force excluding stratgic lift (unless the Nimitz is operating C-130's). They would be 4 to 100 times more capable than any other carrier afloat today.

At least make the effort to understand the issues and the reasons for my comment if you are going to include me in your response.

A study of the history of Carrier aviation and why the US looked at Carriers the size of USS Midway would help.

Its got nothing to do with my personal beliefs, its got everything to do with either operating effectively - or pretending.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The only carriers that will be clearly superior to the canberras will be UK CVF's, US carriers, France's and we could have more carriers than UK/France which would make us more flexable.

For crying out loud, they are not carriers - they are not bunkeraged for it. You just can't whack a few STOVLs on the deck and call it a Carrier - its a lot more complicated than that.

Being able to ferry fixed wing combat assets is not the same as being able to make fixed wing air projection your new primary role on a rolling mission basis.

Sticking a Challenger Hood on a ute will not make it a panelvan, similarly just because an asset has a flat deck the area of your local woolworths carpark doesn't make it a carrier.

As an emergency aircraft transporter with low level intent, sure it will do the job, but this incessant belief that we have a defacto aircraft carrier is just nonsense.

If you want a real carrier to undertake these pretend ESG missions involving fixed wing combat aircraft, then there's a bit that needs to be attended to. Either that or be prepared to undergo a major cut and shut and lose a few years off the front line.

The history of Aust'n post production naval cut and shut is something that you should be afraid of. Get the Prime to do it from day one and don't expect to get it on time. There is no linear relationship to project extensions.

 

[Tasman]

I still think it would be worthwhile seriously assessing the F-35B's on the LHD. Luckily, this will automatically occur when spain tries to operate the Harriers off it in the not to distant future. It would be a perfect time to look at STOVL and what are the possible benifits. I tend to think the LHD will make a very good platform for these sort of operations.

The other option which is very real is operating the Tigers from the LHD. Which is nothing to be sneezed at. The larger size, weapons lift etc will really come into its own here. Supporting diggers with tigers is a pretty good option.

I personally agree that Australia should seriously evaluate the benefits that could be gained by acquiring a small number of F-35Bs in the total buy for possible use from the LHD's. I'd personally like the navy to operate them but accept the reality that such aircraft would almost certainly be operated by the RAAF. I also acccept the reality (as I said a few posts ago) that up to now no public interest has been shown in the F-35B by any of the ADF services.

In the case of the Tiger I believe it is a given that they will operate from the LHD's. It will be interesting to see what a standard airgroup will be for an LHD during an operational deployment. Obviously it will be flexible and capable of being varied according to the requirements of a particular mission. I envisage that a typical complement might comprise a ships flight of 2 x MRH-90's (RAN) on each ship. An army airgroup of say 16 x MRH-90s, 6 x Tiger ARH's and 2 x CH-47D Chinooks could be spread between the two ships. A couple of RAN S-70B Seahawks or SH-1G Seasprites might be added to each ship's flight to provide self defence against submarines or fast surface craft. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when various helicopter combinations for the LHD's are being discussed.

Tas

 

[gf0012-aust]

I personally agree that Australia should seriously evaluate the benefits that could be gained by acquiring a small number of F-35Bs in the total buy for possible use from the LHD's. I'd personally like the navy to operate them but accept the reality that such aircraft would almost certainly be operated by the RAAF. I also acccept the reality (as I said a few posts ago) that up to now no public interest has been shown in the F-35B by any of the ADF services.

I'd love to see carriers back in the RAN. I might have mentioned before, but my father served on Sydney during the Korean War and I have quite a few shots of Sea Furys going off to do their job. I've also got quite a few shots of her a bit bent up when she was hit by Typhoon Ruth. So I have a somewhat Carrier bias and was most unhappy when the Falklands happened and we lost them due to timing and funding. Losing the FWCA of the FAA was the next mortal stab to the heart.

But, reality has to bite before enthusiasm pollutes logic, the numbers and the engineering issues (that need to be addressed now) are not even remotely addressed.

 

[Tasman]

For crying out loud, they are not carriers - they are not bunkeraged for it. You just can't whack a few STOVLs on the deck and call it a Carrier - its a lot more complicated than that.

Agreed. I would not envisage the LHD's being used as fully fledged carriers but I do think that there might be times when a detachment of F-35B's could accompany an embarked force and possibly go ashore with the troops as soon as a suitable airbase is secured. Certainly the USMC has this philosophy and it seems to me that the ADF structure is developing some similarities to the Marine Corps.

However, I accept that the ADF has to make decisions about how best to distribute its budget and its personnel and the F-35B is well down the priority list (and probably not on it at all at the moment). The RAAF has made it clear that the disadvantages of the VSTOL aircraft compared with the F-35A are too great to include it in its planned buy. I think it would need a strong case to be mounted by army and navy to get the F-35B onto any future buying list and at present it is probably felt that the Tiger ARH can provide the air support needed. I'd just like to see the F-35B evaluated with an open mind.

Tas

 

[Tasman]

But, reality has to bite before enthusiasm pollutes logic, the numbers and the engineering issues (that need to be addressed now) are not even remotely addressed.

I cant argue with that! As I said in my earlier posts I would just like to see the potential use of the F-35B properly evaluated rather than being summarily dismissed or, even worse, not considered at all.

Tas

 

[gf0012-aust]

Agreed. I would not envisage the LHD's being used as fully fledged carriers but I do think that there might be times when a detachment of F-35B's could accompany an embarked force and possibly go ashore with the troops as soon as a suitable airbase is secured. Certainly the USMC has this philosophy and it seems to me that the ADF structure is developing some similarities to the Marine Corps.

Thank you! You get my point. Ferry and flight contribution is not the same as Fighting as a FW Carrier. Sure we can cash and carry, but extrapolating that to another level leads to misuse, abuse and then compromising the asset as it's whole raisson de guerre or raisson de etre gets polluted.

On another note, I once had it described to me that the RAAF and Army were compared against USMC operational styles, and RAN was looked at against the capability of the USCG.

However, I accept that the ADF has to make decisions about how best to distribute its budget and its personnel and the F-35B is well down the priority list (and probably not on it at all at the moment). The RAAF has made it clear that the disadvantages of the VSTOL aircraft compared with the F-35A are too great to include it in its planned buy. I think it would need a strong case to be mounted by army and navy to get the F-35B onto any future buying list and at present it is probably felt that the Tiger ARH can provide the air support needed. I'd just like to see the F-35B evaluated with an open mind.

Throw away comment from me. If F-35B's are in the procurement line then they will end up as A-nnn assets, not N-nnn assets.

 

[octopus7]

I too would love to see carriers back in the RAN. I vaguely remember when there was talk about acquiring the HMS Ark Royal. I think that was sometime back in the late 80's (correct me if I am wrong) but the idea was quickly knocked on the head. The highlight for me would be to have 1 or 2 Nimitz class carriers. But besides the massive logistics and aircraft cost there would be the inevitable backlash from the general public, due to the atomic power plant these ships use. I think our government will keep the navy air arm limited to helicopters, sadly.

 

[Todjaeger]

I too would love to see carriers back in the RAN. I vaguely remember when there was talk about acquiring the HMS Ark Royal. I think that was sometime back in the late 80's (correct me if I am wrong) but the idea was quickly knocked on the head. The highlight for me would be to have 1 or 2 Nimitz class carriers. But besides the massive logistics and aircraft cost there would be the inevitable backlash from the general public, due to the atomic power plant these ships use. I think our government will keep the navy air arm limited to helicopters, sadly.

If the RAN had a Nimitz CVN that would make crew manning an... interesting exercise, since a CVN crew alone is roughly one quarter of the current size of the RAN. Nevermind the crewing requirements for any of the needed escort vessels to makeup a CBG... Not having any books currently handy which show the personnel requirements for a CBG, but I would not be at all surprised if one of two USN CBGs comprised more shipboard personnel than serve in the RAN.

As for the talk of the RAN getting a replacement for the HMS Melbourne from the RN, I could be mistaken, but I thought that was to have been for one of the Invincible class vessels, though I could be mistaken. Also as I recall, the discussions had started around the time the Falklands conflict broke out, at which point Britain decided (rightly IMV) that it should retain the vessels. With that and (again IMV) some rather poor decision making on Australia's part the RAN CVL and fixed wing combat aircraft were let go. At this point though it is really a water/dam issue.

It is of course possible that the RAN might restart carrier ops, and a fixed wing combat element could re-enter the FAA. However, short of significant conflict or responsibilities over a prolonged period I deem it unlikely since there would be little need for the capabilities of a dedicated carrier in comparison to the costs of such a venture.

-Cheers

 

[McTaff]

I personally agree that Australia should seriously evaluate the benefits that could be gained by acquiring a small number of F-35Bs in the total buy for possible use from the LHD's. I'd personally like the navy to operate them but accept the reality that such aircraft would almost certainly be operated by the RAAF. I also acccept the reality (as I said a few posts ago) that up to now no public interest has been shown in the F-35B by any of the ADF services.

In the case of the Tiger I believe it is a given that they will operate from the LHD's. It will be interesting to see what a standard airgroup will be for an LHD during an operational deployment. Obviously it will be flexible and capable of being varied according to the requirements of a particular mission. I envisage that a typical complement might comprise a ships flight of 2 x MRH-90's (RAN) on each ship. An army airgroup of say 16 x MRH-90s, 6 x Tiger ARH's and 2 x CH-47D Chinooks could be spread between the two ships. A couple of RAN S-70B Seahawks or SH-1G Seasprites might be added to each ship's flight to provide self defence against submarines or fast surface craft. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when various helicopter combinations for the LHD's are being discussed.

Tas

-----Plus all the subsequent posts-----

Yes, it is a shame the RAN will not consider undertaking fixed-wing operations again. F-35B's, if ever aquired will almost certainly be operated by RAAF personnel.

The fly on the wall scenario made me chuckle. It would be hilarious to see Army and Navy trying to figure out who is in charge of what, not just what goes on board. Given the experiences with the Ships Army Detachment aboard the LPH's, I can see it working well, but it could be a while before procedures and standards are finalised. The Navy have their way of doing things, and I expect it would prevail over most of the Army stuff, but I'm biased. A bit.

I'm not sure the Tiger will make it aboard in any significant numbers until they have a blade fold. Helos above decks in the wind, being moved across the deck, being raised or lowered on lifts, or around other aircraft being moved with blades not folded is a recipe for disaster in so many ways. Regardless of the room that seems to be available, there is no substitute for having those damned things out of the way. Trust me on this one.

 

[harryriedl]

Agreed. I would not envisage the LHD's being used as fully fledged carriers but I do think that there might be times when a detachment of F-35B's could accompany an embarked force and possibly go ashore with the troops as soon as a suitable airbase is secured. Certainly the USMC has this philosophy and it seems to me that the ADF structure is developing some similarities to the Marine Corps.

However, I accept that the ADF has to make decisions about how best to distribute its budget and its personnel and the F-35B is well down the priority list (and probably not on it at all at the moment). The RAAF has made it clear that the disadvantages of the VSTOL aircraft compared with the F-35A are too great to include it in its planned buy. I think it would need a strong case to be mounted by army and navy to get the F-35B onto any future buying list and at present it is probably felt that the Tiger ARH can provide the air support needed. I'd just like to see the F-35B evaluated with an open mind.

Tas

in an ideal situation would be after the LHD are in commission would be for the RN, USMC even the Spanish navy could land fixed wing aircraft on aus LHD and rehabilitate the RAN, RAAF to the advantages of the F35B and fixed wing on carriers LHD.

also 'they are not bunkeraged' im just curious about that statement as the Spanish plan on operating Juan Carlos 2 as a carrier and i thought the AUS LHD was the same basic design

 

[StingrayOZ]

Perhaps calling them carriers is the wrong term, I don't know what to call them as no ship currently operates the way I would suggest they operate. There would be no deep service, no extensive maintence areas the would as you said, be basically a ferry where they could take off, land, refuel/rearm. Sort of a floating runway with out the many carrier bits carriers need to sustain aircraft.

Negatives with this approach is you need more aircraft and more ships to perform the same mission as a dedicated carrier.



GF - I would argue that the US has taken the most bang for the buck route. They could build a carrier that was smaller and more efficent. But then they would need more carriers to do what they want to do. I would say Nimitz is oversized, it doesn't carry its maxium compliment of aircraft and doesn't normally operate at peak capacity. But like I said, its still more effective than the entire RAAF.

I think the CVF will be quiet efficent with less demanding STOVL aircraft and future CATOBAR with e-catapults. This future aircraft are more likely to be UAV's.

Agreed there are more pressing issues. Folding blades for the Tiger and the chook would be much higher on that list. Having folding blades for those birds would improve deck handling and operations more than a 7 spot. I think even getting tigers and chooks effectively operating off the LHD will be a huge effort. Chooks are I belive absolutely essential for its primary mission and tigers would be required in very realistic senarios.

 

[barra]

But like I said, its still more effective than the entire RAAF.

Yeah, but you can't take the entire RAAF out with one torpedo either!!!!

Barra

 

[barra]

The Navy have their way of doing things, and I expect it would prevail over most of the Army stuff, but I'm biased. A bit.

Well Navy are the senior service Mctaff, they usually get their way. More MRH-90 for Navy is a must though IMO, I reckon they should have a flight of 6-8 airframes on each LHD permanently. Here is a piccy of the Navys first MRH-90 ready for delivery. Like the colour scheme? Looks very Army to me.

Hooroo

 

[Tasman]

Well Navy are the senior service Mctaff, they usually get their way. More MRH-90 for Navy is a must though IMO, I reckon they should have a flight of 6-8 airframes on each LHD permanently. Here is a piccy of the Navys first MRH-90 ready for delivery. Like the colour scheme? Looks very Army to me.

Hooroo

Good to see that the airforce agrees that the navy is the senior service!

On a serious note I agree that a decent sized flight of naval MRH-90's should be permanently assigned to each LHD. An alternative might be to develop a 'joint helo squadron' with army and naval personnel assigned which would have a primary role of providing permanent detachments for each LHD. I think we need at least one MRH-90 squadron trained and deployed along the lines of a USMC squadron.

Tas

 

[McTaff]

I've seen both colour schemes - the major difference is the 'ARMY' or 'NAVY' written across the top, and the Navy one had a little kangaroo near the back - didn't see it on the Army one, but didn't look close enough.

Kudos on the Senior Service comment (made me laugh!), but although it is somewhat true, the real reasons are simply the Navy has the more comprehensive SI's and polcies regarding the operation of aircraft from flaoting platforms. However, the Army needs cannot be forgotten.

I am wondering who will ultimately be in charge of Air Traffic Control WRT to LHD's.
Will they train up Aircraft Controller Naval Officers to be "full-on" ATC?
Will they import the 'real deal' RAAF ATC personnel?
Will they elevate a FLYCO to the position and leave it there?
Will they simply continue to use SO's?

That'll be a real interesting point.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would imagine the LHD are all about the navy and the Army all working together. Each ship will have ~1,000 army personel at peak periods, and will have work closely handling army assets and supporting equipment/personel. It will take intergration of the forces to the next level.

While a CSG may be disrupted by a single torpedo, I doubt it would destroy them. Did I mention a CSG is proberly more capable than the entire RAN?