agree. eg The F-117's did a transoceanic flight from the US midwest to Saudi Arabia and then went straight into a mission. That was 6 flight inflight refuels for an aircraft never intended to undertake transoceanic missions.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
battlensign
New Member
So you've both got Strike operations covered.............but what about CAS?
Brett.
Brett.
the road runner
Active Member
We do long range Transport of our F-111 and F-18 to the Nevada Dessert for red flag
I am under the impression that these aircraft have multiple mid air refueling along the way
Regards
and to Diego Garcia.....
OK lets analytically look at the usefullness of say 6 F35'Bs for supporting ground troops going ashore.
Firstly anything that we will go ashore without colalition support is either close enough for our land based fighters (eg timor region) or big enough 6 F35B's would not suffice (eg say Malaysian sized airforce) in air denial, so it would purley be a CAS role.
Lets think about the effectiveness of 6 F-35B's in CAS. What can 6 F-35B's do that can't be done by the Tiger? Drop bombs! Now given the limited sortie rate and air coverage that 6 F35B's can undertake thats max six aircraft say 24 SDB's(given AUS can even get them) Thats 144 SBD bombs allowing for a 2 hour sortie. Thats 72 SDB's per hour. Now lets look at how much NGS an ANZAC can provide (you will have upto 3 availible 5 inch guns). Max 16-20 r/min with a mag of say 475 rounds lets average the fire rate out to 5 r/min. Thats 95 mins to exhuast the Mag. Therefore 14.25 tonne per Frigate down range vs 16.3 for the entire F-35B's. The frigate can provide sutained fire over an extended amount of time in more controlled amounts, while the F-35B's are restricted by fuel consumption. Therefore on a usefullness front in terms of CAS, I would go a cheap frigate with a 5 inch gun over the F-35B's in terms of bang for buck...... or just mount a 5 inch on the LHD's
.Basically if anybody we can stop, wants to attack Australia, any airfield will be within Australia's own strike land based assests(Tankered). The LHD's are only going to be used offensively if its within range of our own land based assets or under colaition air cover.
Furthermore the reason the RAN will definately not get the F35B is that the RAN is set up for Sea denial NOT Sea control. Sea control is the reason other nations have their limited carriers, this is not what the RAN is about. If you don't believe this go read through the white paper in particular the strategic paragraphs and specifically think about why 12 subs were chosen.
No, we KNOW why Spain is equipping its BPE (not "BPE's" - only one of them) to operate F-35B. The Spanish reasons are completely public. It's because Spain has exactly one real carrier, and will replace that, when the time comes, with exactly one new carrier. Ships need repairs & refits from time to time. With only one carrier, Spain will sometimes be without an operational carrier. Someone had the bright idea that the Armada could replace its old LSTs with a new LHD, equipped to operate F-35B for the sole purpose of covering those times when the real carrier is not operational. Very sensible, for a navy with only one carrier.
There was never, at any time, any thought of operating a handful of F-35B off the LHD. It's all or nothing. She will be fitted with bolt-on equipment modules, which IIRC include jet fuel tanks in the vehicle deck. The dock will be sealed. She will then sail as an aircraft carrier, with a full complement of aircraft: Harriers initially, F-35B later.
Other cases in which she might carry STOVL aircraft are:
- operating as an aircraft transport, in effect a floating hangar, either in tandem with real aircraft carriers, or for shipping STOVL aircraft to somewhere from where they can fly off to land bases, without preparation.
- a spare deck for the landing of STOVL fighters in an emergency, from which they can later fly off.
Note that none of these envisages any possible customer buying a handful of F-35B, or that any customer buys a BPE to operate as a primary or sole aircraft carrier. It isn't what the class is designed for.
The one and only Spanish LHD (not "LHD's" [sic]), when she's finished building & is in service, will not carry 6 STOVL aircraft. She'll carry none most of the time, & sometimes, when reconfigured as an aircraft carrier, with her dock sealed (so not able to function as an LHD) will carry as many as needed, which if she's actually called on to fight, would probably be as many as they can cram aboard, i.e. about 12 in the hangar & a few parked on deck.
The US navy & its practices are not relevant to either Spain or Australia in this context. The USN has ten LHAs & LHDs, each of which is 50% larger than the BPE. It also has 11 aircraft carriers, & 9 LPDs. You cannot view the air group of each LHA/LHD in isolation, divorced from the context provided by the 29 other ships.
Spain, on the other hand has one carrier, & will have one LHD, only one of which will operate STOVL aircraft at any given time, & just two LPDs. That places their operations in a very different context. The two LPDs will be refitted, one at a time, when the carrier is active. Therefore, the normal available number of ships will be three out of Spains four. The LHD will either be one of only two operational amphibious ships, with a carrier also operational, or it will be the only operational carrier, but both the LPDs will be available. When the carrier is operating, all the fighters will be on her, & the LHD will need all its amphibious capability, because usually only one LPD will be operating. When the carrier is in refit, the LHD will function as a dedicated carrier. At no time will there be either the need, or the spare aircraft, to operate any off the LHD.
Australia is building only two LHDs. Some of the time, only one will be available. Squeezing a handful of F-35B on it would compromise its amphibious function, & those few fighters would be castrated by the LHDs inability to support them properly.
Brett, you should be reading up a little more on the problems of ship to shore maneuver. This way you can have an understanding of the various planning considerations, which would include ISR, CAS, naval gun fire support and attack helicopters, two of which Beagle mentioned in the above post.
If I may be direct, you are looking at the issue from only one dimension. You are also making comparisons without dealing with the differences between the navies and their planning considerations. There are other factors that you need to consider and also the question of context. To get a sense of context, please ask yourself this question.
Q: Can the surface fleet of the RAN operate to insert a landing force without air cover (provided either by allied sources or by the RAAF)?
Please answer the above Qn before we proceed further. I hope you don't mind that I'm asking a question in relation to your question.
Last edited:
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Clearly, having a small number of STOVL Fighters like the F-35B. Would offer a great deal of protection for a Squadron of RAN Ships. Which, likely would be up of 1-AWD, 2-Frigates, and 2-3 Amphibious Ships. (including a LHD) These aircraft could be used in support of ground troops going ashore, anti-surface, or air defense missions. Further, such a force would in many case would be joined by similar Allied Squadrons to make up a "Task Force". Thereby becoming a force multiplier......................
Personally, these new LHD's and LHA's. Remind me of the "Jeep" Carriers of WWII. As they proved vauble "support" for land based and sea based operations.
BTW Does anyone know of the Battle of Samar between the US and Japan in WWII?
Personally, these new LHD's and LHA's. Remind me of the "Jeep" Carriers of WWII. As they proved vauble "support" for land based and sea based operations.
BTW Does anyone know of the Battle of Samar between the US and Japan in WWII?
Last edited:
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Sorry, what you are talking about is a "Ferry Mission". Which, is far from a actual long range fighter mission. Clearly, a Tanker could escort a squadron of F-22's from Hawaii to Guam. Yet, the Raptor Pilots would be exhausted by time they reach the target. Then they would have to fly all the way back home! Also, how many stories could you generate at such distances? Maybe one every day in a half! (i.e. two every three days) Plus, that doesn't even touch such things as damaged aircraft that need to land very soon. Which, is hard when your over a thousand miles from base.
So, in short you could perform an ultra long mission as a single strike. (and it would be risky) Yet, in no way could you sustain such a mission continuously. Nor, would such missions prove effective even if you could. Because you just can't generate the stories rate needed.
The Thai navy has the world's smallest aircraft carrier - the Chakri Naruebet. Is that what you are advocating? How effective is it, as a force projection tool?
swerve has writtten two detailed posts to explain and contextualize the planning of other navies for you and yet you continue down this path.
An aircraft carrier's main weakness in my humble opinion is that they have only one flight deck crew which tends to work from dawn to dusk and then some. To provide suitable 24-7 defensive air cover the US Navy with their supercarriers like to operate their carriers in pairs. One for day operations and one for night operations in any conflict.... Of course one carrier can have some of its flight deck crew operating with short night shifts, but its not the same as the day shift....
If I was the enemy I would attack your single carrier with far too few aircraft in the middle of the night with a squadron or two of fighters.....if only to test your night operations. Please study carrier operations before commenting on them. Air Forces have air tankers today they didn't have during WWII, and fighter aircraft have much more range as well. Flight deck crews and pilots have to sleep sometime....
One, you are not thinking through the issues. Two, you are choosing to misinterpret what was written to preserve your idea (without reference to other considerations). Three, gf0012-aust has given another even better example that shows that what you are writing is meaningless verbiage.
If you want to continue down your present path, that is fine with me. It's pointless to disagree with you.
Last edited:
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Sure sounds like Australia is considering F-35B's to me. At least at some future date........
Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Recall the Falklands? Recall Iraq? Before any landing was attempted the air forces bombed the Stanley runway to put it out of action during the Falklands campaign making it unsuitable for fighter aircraft. The British didn't bomb the runways in Argentina for political purposes, not wanting a full scale war with Argentina. The British only wanted to recover the Falklands. On the other hand Iraq was different. But the air war lasted a while before ground action was ever attempted. Don't you think the Aussies would do the same with any ground action or landings in the Southwest Pacific?
In my prior post, I was giving an example to support of your post, in the hope that Crusader2000 will understand some of the issues. It is clear that he has consistently rejected any information that does not fit his preconceived notions. So I should take my own advice, take a chill pill and stop responding to Crusader2000. I don't think more information or examples will change his mind.
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Well, then spell out your so called "Long Range Mission". Like the aircraft and types involved and the distances involved. Instead of ranting..........
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Really, the Falklands War is a good example as it applies to this debate. As the RN would have been unable to provide the Fleet with Air Protection. Nor, Close Air Support for Royal Marines and Royal Army Troops going ashore without STOVL Harriers. Also, the great distances involved are very similar too! As a matter of fact the only strike support the RAF could provide. Was a couple long range Bomber Strike flown from Acention Island off the Coast of Africa. Which, required several tanker missions per Bomber!
Crusader2000
Banned Member
I think you need to be much more specific. Before you can lecture me on Carrier Operations. Also, "Air Tanker" primarily provide "time on station" much more than greatly extending the range of Tactical Fighters. With both Iraq War's being a good examples.
How is that relevant to your desire to prove that you are correct? I know that your desire is to show that Australia should purchase the F-35B, in relation to the RAN's future capability development.Well, then spell out your so called "Long Range Mission". Like the aircraft and types involved and the distances involved. Instead of ranting..........
You should see some of the long posts I write to help people who want to learn get orientated on specific topics. IMO, you want to confirm your preconceived notions. Many people (including moderators) have questioned your reasoning process and attempted to aid it with more information.
I believe that you will believe what you want to believe. We'll see if the RAAF will do that in a few years. Then, at that time, one of us will be right, one of us will be wrong.
I'll stop responding on this topic, if that OK with you. I've got a beer in hand and getting ready to go to bed. So I've taken my chill pill.
Last edited:
- Status