A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[Sea Toby]

One would assume you would have to raise up to a minimum depth, I'd opt to dive deep and reduce the likelihood of the AsW (helo or maritime aircraft) launched homing torpedo locking on and defeating my counter measures. I can't imagine a sub can track a maritime aircraft (MR4 for example), which has dropped sonar buoys and is coming in for the kill unless located in very shallow water. The missile will also require a two stage launch, one to push the weapon above water line (compressed air say) followed by a main engine ignition to send it on its way to the target.

Taking out a helicopter would only attract more helicopters and/or another submarine into the fight. Warships rarely travel alone. Some frigates even have two helicopters... While another warship might not close the gap in a few minutes, their helicopters can... I would trade one hundred milliion dollar helicopters for one billion dollar submarines any day...

I rather dive deep and go to silent running.... Use torpedo decoys...

 

[aussienscale]

Isnt this supposed to be a "hypothetical carrier for the RAN" thread ?
(sorry about the one liner)

 

[agc33e]

Apparently Soviet/Russian Kilo, Akula and Typhoon-class submarines all (could) carry SA-N-5 or SA-N-8 portable SAM systems. Basically navalized versions of Soviet/Russian Manpads. I am not aware of any incidents where they were actually used, but apparently GF is.



I would suggest checking ones facts, prior to making a post like this again. At present and having checked some of my sources, these are the following MRA/MPA which are jet-powered. They are the Tu-22MR "Backfire", the Xian H-6/Tu-16 "Badger", Nimrod MR.2/MRA.4, the S-3 Viking, and the upcoming P-8A Poseidon. With the exception of the Tu-22MR "Backfire" all of these jet-powered aircraft are subsonic. And with the exception of the carrier-bourne ASW jet the S-3 Viking, the other aircraft are either variants of civilian airliners or long-ranged military bombers. There are of course others which I have either not come across in the immediate search I did, and/or had been operational but since retired

What is important for most surveillance-type operations is the ability to stay on station for extended periods of time. Speed is largely irrelevant in terms of a "bonus" feature, and in many cases high speed is actually a negative capability. Something like an MPA, whether it is fixed or rotary-winged, is going to have an assigned area to monitor as it were, looking for possible intrusions. As such, being in the appropriate location to monitor the assigned area for as long as possible is typically more important than being able to get to/from the patrol station. A good compare/contrast example comes from the USCG. The HC-144A Ocean Sentry, which is a version of the Spanish CN-235-300 is entering USCG service to replace the HU-25 Guardian, itself a variant of the Dassault Falcon 20G jet. Depending on configuration, the prop-powered Ocean Sentry and have a mission endurance of ~9 hours, which is a significant improvement of the max 4 hours from the HU-25 Guardian. Given that the Falcon has a max speed nearly twice the speed of a CN-235 but is still being replaced, it would tend to suggest that being "fast" is not an advantage in terms of MPA ops.

Additionally, the P-3 Orion MPA is a version of a propeller-driven civilian airliner from the late 1950's, with the final MPA version ceasing production ~1992 IIRC. The reason a replacement programme is underway for the aircract is that some examples of the Orion which are still in service are upgraded -B Orions, and/or early model -C Orions from the 1960's which means that may well have hit the forty year mark. That would suggest that the Orion was considered a "good" design, which means speed was unimportant in terms of operationss.

Just to reiterate, it is often worthwhile double checking ones position and supporting facts, prior to posting them. Doing so, can often help one avoid posting incorrect or inaccurate information.

-Cheers

Thanks for the info, i was referring not strictly to the term mpa, as you detail, but in the context of having your fleet that is seeking the enemies fleet/s, for ex., they use the helos in the frigates or destroyers for over the horizon search, just that part of the "mpa", and in that context the speed and range and etc of a jet is goint to find easier the hostile ships, thinking in low altitude. The aircrafts that you say are for working more in superiority or admiting being discovered in high altitude, but if you want to find the hostile fleet before they make it with you its better some jets than helos for me, if you have jets and the hostile hasnt they should be very worried for their helos.
Jets fighters working at high altitude for finding hostile ships wont be as effective as the ones you say, for lacking of specific to-surface radars, or big ones, but still the stealth f35b, simply with sight during the daylight can hoover a very big squared distance and be prevented from incoming hostile "sm2´s" with the spy radar.
Or but if you have two enfronted fleets or dispersed hostile fleets, with which you share air space awareness but you dont know where your enemies are, but not very far away...

Cheers.

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for the info, i was referring not strictly to the term mpa, as you detail, but in the context of having your fleet that is seeking the enemies fleet/s, for ex., they use the helos in the frigates or destroyers for over the horizon search, just that part of the "mpa", and in that context the speed and range and etc of a jet is goint to find easier the hostile ships, thinking in low altitude. The aircrafts that you say are for working more in superiority or admiting being discovered in high altitude, but if you want to find the hostile fleet before they make it with you its better some jets than helos for me, if you have jets and the hostile hasnt they should be very worried for their helos.
Jets fighters working at high altitude for finding hostile ships wont be as effective as the ones you say, for lacking of specific to-surface radars, or big ones, but still the stealth f35b, simply with sight during the daylight can hoover a very big squared distance and be prevented from incoming hostile "sm2´s" with the spy radar.
Or but if you have two enfronted fleets or dispersed hostile fleets, with which you share air space awareness but you dont know where your enemies are, but not very far away...

Cheers.

In that case, you are not describing a Maritime Patrol Aircraft. The closest to something like that would be a Maritime Reconnaissance Aircraft, the Tu-22MR would be an example of that. In that case, were one is actually seeking out a threat to allow strikes, then an aircraft with a rapid ingress/egress capability is relevant. Keep in mind though that such aircraft typically are operating for sites that are essentially "safe" from strikes/counterstrikes from carriers.

In the case of aircraft operating from something like a carrier, the situation is quite different. In this case, the objective would be to detect potential targets before they are able to close/engage the CV or task force.

-Cheers

EDIT: Something else to consider. Even during the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union largely expected to use the prop-driven Tu-95 'Bear' as a maritime recon aircraft to locate NATO task forces and shipping. This would be accomplished with the large & long-ranged search radar, with the information then relayed to other bombers and/or attack submarines. Given the considerable potential standoff detection range, speed was not considered to be overly important relative to other capabilities.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Taking out a helicopter would only attract more helicopters and/or another submarine into the fight. Warships rarely travel alone. Some frigates even have two helicopters... While another warship might not close the gap in a few minutes, their helicopters can... I would trade one hundred milliion dollar helicopters for one billion dollar submarines any day...

I rather dive deep and go to silent running.... Use torpedo decoys...

Only if the helo hasn't localised the sub.

Once the sub is detected, the rest of the world knows the location. It make sense to take out the helo then if the helo is a threat ie ASW torps. Otherwise, the helo will just continue to sound out the location deep or no deep. At least taking out the helo will buy some search-escape time.

 

[StingrayOZ]

So is a hypothetical "carrier" the ideal platform to wage ASW from? Hunting a SSK would be fairly feasable using maritime patrol, AWACs, and possible even advanced aircraft like the F-35.

The advantage a F-35B gives is situation awareness and survival, it may not be feasable to send helicopters or maritime aircraft to patrol areas where SSK's are most likely operating. This could be for a variety of reasons, there may be hazardous terrain, area not suited to land based aircraft, low risk but contested or unsantised airspace (or example enemy helos), etc.

In the RAN situation using JORN to provide looking points where SSK's may be snorkling would allow a F-35B to be scrambled, to eyeball, radar, confirm etc the sub before the contact disapears, within an hour. Something that would not be possible with land based aircraft. While certainly not justifying the purchase of a carrier or F-35B (I think they are two seperate decisions), it may be an interesting point. Sub launched drones (or even sub dismounted drones launched drones) could makes things much more hazardous for ASW helicopters. I think the technology is out there for a sub to launch a highly effective antiair missile submerged(deeply submerged at that). Heck it could be directed to target by a sat or drone or be completely autonomous.

F35B's to fight subs? But what an impossible way to fight subs, off a big slow lazy target. A torpedo magnet. And the subs you would be fighting would generally be located in littorial waters! bah!

I think Australia will never operate the F-35B or F-18 as a carrier aircraft. Thats not to say it can't operate a "carrier" of sorts.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

That's not entirely accurate. Aren't some RAAF bug pilots carrier-qualified.... Just not RAN carrier-qualified?

The new bugs are probably carrier-capable considering they took it out of the USN queue.

The Canberras should be able to operate a ASW helo force so an ASW carrier is a reality rather than a hypothetical case.

As to the F-35B, that's a moot point. The RAAF won't be acquiring the -B or the -C version.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I believe the RAAF F-18 won't have carrier capable bits of them (landing approach, hooks etc). However I would totally belive it would be a fairly trivial task to fit them back onto the airframes. I don't believe RAAF F-18 aircraft will ever be used on a carrier while still operated by the RAAF. There are a lot of pickles to get over for that, they won't be doing French style operating rafels from usn carriers.

The RAAF has pilots trained on F-18 on USN carriers. I think that started before we even got the superbugs anyway as a general exchange program. A perfectly useful skill set given the RAAF would no doubt operate with the USN aircraft, but does not mean Australia will operate a squadron on a USN carrier.

The LHD are helicopter carriers, or amphibious carriers, troop carriers, they will most certainly deploy several UAV's so will be UAV carriers as well.

They may even land and launch RAF or USMC F-35B for training operations etc. Its a heck of a lot easier to send over a few F-35B's for a week or so than deploy a whole America or Elizabeth class for a training operation.

I wonder though, if the argument would change if say Australia had 3 or 4 LHD's, in a fanciful wartime situation.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That's not entirely accurate. Aren't some RAAF bug pilots carrier-qualified.... Just not RAN carrier-qualified?

we've got RAAF pilots qualifying on naval aircraft because USAF doesn't use them. likewise we have RAAF pilots who have exchanged on F-15's, Typhoons, Harriers etc...

RAAF piliots are training for expeditionary warfare vis a vis purple co-operation.

The new bugs are probably carrier-capable considering they took it out of the USN queue.

they have 3 primary things different to USN Shornets, but we still aren't training pilots to conduct carrier based warfare outside of the need to have solid familiarity with how all of our allies operate.

The Canberras should be able to operate a ASW helo force so an ASW carrier is a reality rather than a hypothetical case.

they will be, and I imagine you'll see them deck swapping in a future Talisman Saber Ex - as well as running ASW off of friendlies

As to the F-35B, that's a moot point. The RAAF won't be acquiring the -B or the -C version.

more to the point, there is no doctrine development or relevant training that even remotely looks at fixed wing jet fighter opportunities from the fatships.

some can get as excited as they like about the potential - but it aint happening - these things require a solid lead up, planning of doctrine, setting up approp exchange with allies etc...

you're absolutely right it's a moot point,

 

[RAAF-35]

I believe the RAAF F-18 won't have carrier capable bits of them (landing approach, hooks etc). However I would totally belive it would be a fairly trivial task to fit them back onto the airframes. I don't believe RAAF F-18 aircraft will ever be used on a carrier while still operated by the RAAF. There are a lot of pickles to get over for that, they won't be doing French style operating rafels from usn carriers.

The RAAF has pilots trained on F-18 on USN carriers. I think that started before we even got the superbugs anyway as a general exchange program. A perfectly useful skill set given the RAAF would no doubt operate with the USN aircraft, but does not mean Australia will operate a squadron on a USN carrier.

The LHD are helicopter carriers, or amphibious carriers, troop carriers, they will most certainly deploy several UAV's so will be UAV carriers as well.

They may even land and launch RAF or USMC F-35B for training operations etc. Its a heck of a lot easier to send over a few F-35B's for a week or so than deploy a whole America or Elizabeth class for a training operation.

I wonder though, if the argument would change if say Australia had 3 or 4 LHD's, in a fanciful wartime situation.

The Classic Hornets do have a tail hook.

 

[agc33e]

Only if the helo hasn't localised the sub.

Once the sub is detected, the rest of the world knows the location. It make sense to take out the helo then if the helo is a threat ie ASW torps. Otherwise, the helo will just continue to sound out the location deep or no deep. At least taking out the helo will buy some search-escape time.

Sorry for being exactly out of the thread but continuing the topic that we discuss, we dont need to start a full thread to any topic we might fall in the discussion about the main topic of the thread.

Well this unconfortable iris or similar future developments (or secret ones) have 4 missiles in each "torpedo" capsule, so if more helos come to that zone they could be shooted as well, we will develope the doctrine (from our exchange programs with allies) to face that weapon for example when the pilots in the helo see the missile coming out of the sea they will jump with the rescue suit to the sea... 3 But at least they save the life and will know where it is the hostile sub, i would suggest a rear view mirror..
Of course this weapon is still for development and the helos has other sensors apart from the active sonar (that is what the sub might more realise about the helo, to know that and launch the missile or come near surface for lpi radar etc..). But imagine a couple of subs with 8 missiles they could answer some helos, not just one, the range of the missile is 20 kms, the range of the torpedo from the helo is 11 kms. But we dont know ranges of helos sonar, or sub´s abilities to detect helos or planes or details of that weapon. But i wouldnt say that the sub once detected is going to be caught if the hunters are helos, just by knowing an squared zone of x kms around the emerging point of the missile where the sub it was. And here we see a case where having more than 1 torpedo/depth charge in the helo might be important.
Other thing if the sub incident its itself the perimeter of the hostile fleet, because your helo is searching that, and near that perimeter the hostile have helos or destroyers or more subs, you never know.
In this case of this weapon extended commercially to navies, maybe its better to use the ship´s sonar to discover subs, obviously you discover yourself with such a big ping, but it doesnt means that its the main fleet, you might have one awd coupled with anzac ii, for a trip out of the fleet to explore, and once detected a sub send the helo and launch the torpedo without declaring himself using his dipping sonar. For sure the helo its going to arrive later than an asroc which has 22 (rocket)+11 (torp) range, but it will arrive in time anyway, if it fly in that sea conditions.
Essentially we dont need f35b´s like we dont need helos, all we need is very good "harpoons" or sm2´s against the surface ships.
And good ships to be moving to avoid the long range filoguided heavy weight torpedos (50 kms range, 100 km/h speed), the thing is if with sonar and asrocs (torpedos/deepcharges) we could intercept this heavy weight torpedos! It will be a worthy task to develope that ability if they havent done yet.

fftopic

Cheers.

 

[agc33e]

So is a hypothetical "carrier" the ideal platform to wage ASW from? Hunting a SSK would be fairly feasable using maritime patrol, AWACs, and possible even advanced aircraft like the F-35.

The advantage a F-35B gives is situation awareness and survival, it may not be feasable to send helicopters or maritime aircraft to patrol areas where SSK's are most likely operating. This could be for a variety of reasons, there may be hazardous terrain, area not suited to land based aircraft, low risk but contested or unsantised airspace (or example enemy helos), etc.

Not just because of subs, nowadays with missiles in the ships like sm2 with 120 kms or more, and the speed of essm, with radars hundreds of kms of range, with one hostile helo per hostile ship.., making the the reconaisence with a classical maritime patrol aircraft or helo it might be reckless, imagine the helo appears in the horizont of an hostile ship, it wont have much time to get close and look better, at least much less than an f35b.


Thanks.

 

[Todjaeger]

Not just because of subs, nowadays with missiles in the ships like sm2 with 120 kms or more, and the speed of essm, with radars hundreds of kms of range, with one hostile helo per hostile ship.., making the the reconaisence with a classical maritime patrol aircraft or helo it might be reckless, imagine the helo appears in the horizont of an hostile ship, it wont have much time to get close and look better, at least much less than an f35b.


Thanks.

You have overlooked something quite significant in terms of potential employment of MRA whilst searching for potential enemy shipping. An MRA flying at altitude with a powerful sea search radar has a radar horizon of ~400 km. This means that for the MRA to have "blundered" into range of air defence missiles like the SM-2 with a ~120 km range essentially means that the MRA crew deserved to be shot for incompetence. Heck, the visual horizon at altitude (10 km est. used) is ~370 km. So unless the MRA is attempting to close to take pictures (photo recon) that any incoming missiles would likely be launched from the CAP provided by the CV in the CBG, nothing else would likely be able to get into a position close enough to take a warshot.

-Cheers

 

[agc33e]

You have overlooked something quite significant in terms of potential employment of MRA whilst searching for potential enemy shipping. An MRA flying at altitude with a powerful sea search radar has a radar horizon of ~400 km. This means that for the MRA to have "blundered" into range of air defence missiles like the SM-2 with a ~120 km range essentially means that the MRA crew deserved to be shot for incompetence. Heck, the visual horizon at altitude (10 km est. used) is ~370 km. So unless the MRA is attempting to close to take pictures (photo recon) that any incoming missiles would likely be launched from the CAP provided by the CV in the CBG, nothing else would likely be able to get into a position close enough to take a warshot.

-Cheers

Yes with that powerful search radar they are out of the reach of ship´s missiles, but not from hostile jet/helo asymetrical threads, anyway if you have those mpa´s probably you have some jet fighters to protect it. Other thing is they want to know exactly what it is 400 kms away, you can have commercial ships in the radar screen and what to distinguish better, now there are sm2´s with a range bigger than 120 kms i read more like 200 kms. Imagine a seeked fleet dispersed, before entering in theoretical missile ranges with respect any reference in the radar they will have to look better what exactly is that reference.

I suppose if we dont have jets or specific mpa´s aircraft, we can use the uav´s for searching over the horizon, i would suggest for it a rotary capability for taking off and landing combined with small jet engine for giving speed in the horizontal.

Enjoy.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thread locked pending Mod Discussion.

Once again we've got rubbish derailing a serious thread.

Some of you just don't get it.

 

[t68]

How far out would a RAN task force have to be from continental Australia before RAAF air cover to become ineffective and before a aircraft carrier would provide the effective CAP patrols for the RAN?

In the context of a modern RAN and a similar situation Australia found her self in 1941/2 with the fall of Singapore and the occupation by Japan of the Indonesian Archipelago, (EG) no forward basing of RAAF aircraft.

Yes we will have aerial tanker support but they will also require CAP support so in effect the support aircraft will have to support the support aircraft, when does it becomes cost effective for the RAN to be self supporting on all fronts.

If i remember correctly the one of the reasons the RAN lost the Melbourne and not replaced was because the RAAF would support the RAN. Then once having the Skyhawks sold to New Zealand the RAAF discovered it was not cost effective to use Hornets for fleet support and we hired back the Skyhawks back from the kiwis for fleet support which was to be provided by the RAAF.

Mods can this be moved to a, A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN? And be reopened.

 

[AegisFC]

Thread unlocked. Please keep the discussion serious. The MODS ask your cooperation in keeping the thread on topic and out of fantasy land.

 

[t68]

F35A JSF has a combat radius of 1090KM (590NM) which would equals a strike packages without air refueling to East Timor, Papua New Guinea and close islands to continental Australia.

If we need go further east or west it will require tanker support to reach places like Fiji, Jakarta, Singapore or into the South china seas or greater Pacific/Indian Ocean. These distances make it impossible for RAAF land based aircraft to defend the RAN without aerial tanker support. In my reading of the limitations of aerial refueling is that whenever a fighter has to refuel it should always have enough fuel on board to make an emergency landing in case of the failure of refueling equipment on friendly soil which limits the distance the RAN task force can go without compromising BARCAP,CAP/STRIKE mission profiles. The chances of this happening is low but not without precedence. I am lead to believe this has happened to the RAAF on couple of times in the past (no official source).

Other limitations with this also rest with pilot endurance, the further out the task force goes the more work load on the pilot becomes in staying with BARCAP and the possibility of a loss of an important asset to the RAAF/RAN with pilot error through fatigue or malfunction.

As with the UK experience in the Falkland’s task force in 1983, you cannot always guarantee suitable land based assets will be available and the Argentine airforce operating at the end off their endurance with the UK light carriers coming in to do battle when appropriate and then standing off out of range of land based aircraft. I believe with out these assets the UK would have no hope in retaking the islands and has shown their hand in building the Queen Elizabeth class carrier as both an ASW and power projection platform.

 

[Aussie Digger]

F35A JSF has a combat radius of 1090KM (590NM) which would equals a strike packages without air refueling to East Timor, Papua New Guinea and close islands to continental Australia.

That is the basic "public" information. In slides used in the Norway brief for JSF, further details of JSF combat radius. Strike missions can include radius of up to 723nm...

If we need go further east or west it will require tanker support to reach places like Fiji, Jakarta, Singapore or into the South china seas or greater Pacific/Indian Ocean. These distances make it impossible for RAAF land based aircraft to defend the RAN without aerial tanker support. In my reading of the limitations of aerial refueling is that whenever a fighter has to refuel it should always have enough fuel on board to make an emergency landing in case of the failure of refueling equipment on friendly soil which limits the distance the RAN task force can go without compromising BARCAP,CAP/STRIKE mission profiles. The chances of this happening is low but not without precedence. I am lead to believe this has happened to the RAAF on couple of times in the past (no official source).

This assumes that RAAF will only ever operate from continental Australia...

 

[StingrayOZ]

Range of the F-35A seems to be extremely long. While we don't know exact details, it certainly seems to be long enough for Australia when operating from Butterworth and CONAUS (contintental Australia?).

I don't see the need to strike Fiji with anything larger than a 155mm shell and certainly flying F-35A's out past Fiji from CONAUS seems over kill. Who else exactly would be operating out in the deepest darkest lonely pacific that the USN wouldn't destroy?

That said, I think there may be more valid reasons for a carrier. Build a closer relationship with Japan? Be able to support Taiwan? Higher level of compatability and interop with US or UK forces. Providing asset gravitas to encourage other allies to work with out forces much closer, training with naval and ground forces in areas where its not currently feasable to do it.