A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[weasel1962]

Re:

Greater range provides more "time on station" or "tos" but the further one operates CAP, the less tos.

I'd say for continuous air cover over fleet support, 200-300nm from airbase without tanker support is perhaps the max with a useable tos, operational planners will plan for F-35A cap missions. Tanker support will increase time on station and greater range. That's a factor of how many aircraft, how far is the CAP radius and dependent on fuel load and consumption.

Based on official docs, F-35A has ~18,000 lb internal fuel. 1116 lbs fuel required for take-off, 980 lbs for approach and landing with 2,000 lbs fuel reserve will provide for ~614 nm radius at 11.31 lbs fuel consumption per nm. That's achieved with most efficient cruise speed which I'm guessing is ~400kts. That means max 3 hours time on station at 0 nm. At 300nm CAP radius, that'd go down to 1.5 hours. Factor in that the fighter will still need some fuel for intercept/ACM, that'd be ~2 hours at 0 nm and 1 hour at 300nm.

Now assuming that 24/7 coverage is needed. This means 8-12 shifts which can be performed with 2-3 a/c rotating.

An A-330 MRTT can offload max 245,000 lbs of fuel (and decreases dependent on range). I'm guessing ~170k lbs at 500nm. At max range, the F-35A can top up 9k lbs per fighter (cos anything more, if the tanker gets shot down the F-35A doesn't have the fuel to reach back) but it can do 9k regular top ups. That means 18 top ups at 500nm with each top up keeping the a/c around for another 2 hours.

One can probably stretch cap to 1000nm but that's going to take a lot more tankers and fewer a/c on station. Too lazy to do the math but I doubt if the RAAF will go that far for CAP.

For sea escort role, a carrier can do better. The CAP radius drops to under 100nm and more a/c can be made available at short notice.

Strategically, I doubt if there will be major threats in the pacific ocean to require RAAF cap anytime soon. In terms of SLOC, deployment may be needed to south east asia but there's christmas island and singapore/malaysia to host fighters so that's less of a concern.

 

[Marc 1]

Greater range provides more "time on station" or "tos" but the further one operates CAP, the less tos.

I'd say for continuous air cover over fleet support, 200-300nm from airbase without tanker support is perhaps the max with a useable tos, operational planners will plan for F-35A cap missions. Tanker support will increase time on station and greater range. That's a factor of how many aircraft, how far is the CAP radius and dependent on fuel load and consumption.

Based on official docs, F-35A has ~18,000 lb internal fuel. 1116 lbs fuel required for take-off, 980 lbs for approach and landing with 2,000 lbs fuel reserve will provide for ~614 nm radius at 11.31 lbs fuel consumption per nm. That's achieved with most efficient cruise speed which I'm guessing is ~400kts. That means max 3 hours time on station at 0 nm. At 300nm CAP radius, that'd go down to 1.5 hours. Factor in that the fighter will still need some fuel for intercept/ACM, that'd be ~2 hours at 0 nm and 1 hour at 300nm.

Now assuming that 24/7 coverage is needed. This means 8-12 shifts which can be performed with 2-3 a/c rotating.

An A-330 MRTT can offload max 245,000 lbs of fuel (and decreases dependent on range). I'm guessing ~170k lbs at 500nm. At max range, the F-35A can top up 9k lbs per fighter (cos anything more, if the tanker gets shot down the F-35A doesn't have the fuel to reach back) but it can do 9k regular top ups. That means 18 top ups at 500nm with each top up keeping the a/c around for another 2 hours.

One can probably stretch cap to 1000nm but that's going to take a lot more tankers and fewer a/c on station. Too lazy to do the math but I doubt if the RAAF will go that far for CAP.

For sea escort role, a carrier can do better. The CAP radius drops to under 100nm and more a/c can be made available at short notice.

Strategically, I doubt if there will be major threats in the pacific ocean to require RAAF cap anytime soon. In terms of SLOC, deployment may be needed to south east asia but there's christmas island and singapore/malaysia to host fighters so that's less of a concern.

Why base these figures on internal fuel alone? On the way to a CAP station, F35's could carry drop tanks. With AWACS support the drop tanks could be retained on CAP unless the aircraft are required to intercept - in which case they could clean up the airframe by dropping the tanks before doing their job..

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Good point. No reason to exclude drop tanks. Just that the original post was very long already.

2 x 426 gal drop tanks will add 5538 lbs of fuel but increase fuel consumption slightly due to added weight. I'm calculating that will add ~200+nm combat radius.

Even without AWACs support, the tanks could be dropped before ACM.

 

[LancasterBomber]

Hmmm.

I am definitely on a very different page to you guys.

Which is OK I guess.

 

[von_noobie]

If Australia was to get a carrier.. Just go and pick up a America class Amphibious assault ship.. Modified slightly to suit our needs of course. Hell of alot cheaper then buying full on carrier.. And really, what advantage has big ass carriers shown to have over little carriers? The ability to field less ships due to costs? proven, Which then has negative effect of reducing area's you can be in. A couple multi-role combat aircraft launched from a LHD/Amphibious assault ship can knock off enemy ships/air craft/bases just as easily as carrier aircraft.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If Australia was to get a carrier.. Just go and pick up a America class Amphibious assault ship.. Modified slightly to suit our needs of course. Hell of alot cheaper then buying full on carrier.. And really, what advantage has big ass carriers shown to have over little carriers? The ability to field less ships due to costs? proven, Which then has negative effect of reducing area's you can be in. A couple multi-role combat aircraft launched from a LHD/Amphibious assault ship can knock off enemy ships/air craft/bases just as easily as carrier aircraft.

please make the effort to read all posts re this before posting.

its been done to death - we assessed the Wasps and they were not suitable for our force plan, doctrine and structure..

 

[von_noobie]

.. Maybe a should read all the threads, But lets be realistic, If RAN was to get a carrier, It would be impossible to get a carrier and have a small crew, Fact is crew still needed for the ship, and crew for the air group attached to the ship.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But lets be realistic, If RAN was to get a carrier, It would be impossible to get a carrier and have a small crew, Fact is crew still needed for the ship, and crew for the air group attached to the ship.

the reality is that there is nothing in our future force planning that even contemplates the need for a carrier.

crewing it and supporting an air wing doesn't even get into that equation

 

[swerve]

If Australia was to get a carrier.. Just go and pick up a America class Amphibious assault ship.. Modified slightly to suit our needs of course. Hell of alot cheaper then buying full on carrier.

As well as what's already been said, LHA-6 is not a hell of a lot cheaper than a full on carrier, unless by 'full on carrier' you meant something like a USN CVN. Navantia or Fincantieri would be happy to sell you a dedicated STOVL carrier for the same price or less.

 

[harryriedl]

As well as what's already been said, LHA-6 is not a hell of a lot cheaper than a full on carrier, unless by 'full on carrier' you meant something like a USN CVN. Navantia or Fincantieri would be happy to sell you a dedicated STOVL carrier for the same price or less.

arn't the LHA-6 about the same price as the CVF

 

[t68]

As well as what's already been said, LHA-6 is not a hell of a lot cheaper than a full on carrier, unless by 'full on carrier' you meant something like a USN CVN. Navantia or Fincantieri would be happy to sell you a dedicated STOVL carrier for the same price or less.

That’s interesting I would have thought the America class would have been cheaper than a Queen Elizabeth class, not by much IMO.

When making the comparison are you going by the cost blow outs for the QE by slowing down production or by total cost associated with manning levels and equipment spec?

It would be an interesting comparison on the Queen Elizabeth on difference on through cost between a ski jump assisted take off Queen Elizabeth, compared to an EMALS assisted or steam catapult with a mix of F/A 18E/F Super Hornet and JSF F35C.

One would think the F35C would be slightly cheaper to buy and operate due to the less complexity of the aircraft by design. But stating that the add expense of fitting and servicing a cat and trap set against servicing needs and the add expense of F35B aircraft.

Manning levels also come into the equation when counting through life cost, Queen Elizabeth has a stated ship crew of 600 plus air wing manning of up to 900, America LHA-6 has a stated manning level of 1059 I do not have a breakdown on numbers for the air wing to ships company. Also Queen Elizabeth is expected to be in service for 50 years where an America class is 35 years.

LHA-6 America / LHX / LHA(R) - Ship List
Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF), Royal Navy Future Aircraft Carrier - Naval Technology

 

[gf0012-aust]

Manning levels also come into the equation when counting through life cost, Queen Elizabeth has a stated ship crew of 600 plus air wing manning of up to 900, America LHA-6 has a stated manning level of 1059 I do not have a breakdown on numbers for the air wing to ships company. Also Queen Elizabeth is expected to be in service for 50 years where an America class is 35 years.

The UK still estimates their through life costs at 30 years (same as australia for large capital assets)

through life costs are typically 3 times build costs.

build costs do not include training and sustainment - and in the new model, establishment costs of any facilities and even hourly expected rates for non platform specialists are factored in

the cycle is raise, train, sustain.

manning is the least of the issues - but adding in fleet support manning, mission cycles with other fleet assets in support etc can make it pretty ugly. all of those are added in as they support the asset even if they are not on the asset.

through life modelling for the US is different from the UK although the US has indicated that it sees that the australian RTS model seems to be far more accurate in accounting terms

 

[t68]

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.

Well striking Fiji in the near future is not on the cards and once we have the Canberra’s operational it will suffice if an intervention if required to restore stability.

China is making subtle overture to Fiji in relation to aid using a Chinese workforce and there are worry signs that Fiji might align her self with china with a continuation of major investment opportunity from china and move out of an Australian /New Zealand sphere of influence, their are also suggestion that china is looking for basing rights in Fiji.

With the PLAN on a major expansion it will be some years before they can seriously challenged the supremacy of the USN in the pacific. With a possible future access to a deep water port in the Fiji it give’s the PLAN numerous options regarding fleet composition in the greater pacific in which to counter the US pacific fleet. With an expanded PLAN fleet in the South China Seas also increase’spresure on Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Borneo and Indonesian Archipelago through to the Java Sea or Celebes and Moluccas Sea.

With a possibility of an isolated Australia/New Zealand in the 15 plus years time frame, we may require maritime strike further a field than the RAAF can handle with land based assets. It is my opinion that Australia lacks the required capability to strike at distance which will be beneficial and be more pro active than the current system, where a potential aggressor will have a rough known theory/knowledge where Australia will with land based assets will form up and stage a strike package from, to either

A, come in force in the most predicted line from which Australia will most likely form a strike package from.

B, take out supporting assets in their holding pattern (EG) tankers Awacs aircraft or take out land based assets like fuel farms ETC

With a carrier equipped RAN it gives flexibility to the ADF from which the aggressor will have to provide more assets to the area to counter a threat from a possible strike from either land based or from a RAN carrier from a different direction.

Australia if even contemplating re engaging in the carrier business would not be in a position to select a proven design in the next 4/ 5 years to evaluate to like 3 way contests between operating an, Cavour class, America class or a Queen Elizabeth class. In assessing a Queen Elizabeth class you have the added dilemma of either a CATOBAR or STOVL carrier in any case the earliest Australia would have a working carrier would be in the 2018/20 time frame

 

[gf0012-aust]

in any case the earliest Australia would have a working carrier would be in the 2018/20 time frame

they're not in any plans - and that's out to 2035 - 2040.

Plan Blue doesn't even mention them.

 

[Waylander]

I still don't get how a carrier offers more protection for Australia proper.

If in the future Australia has to defend itself against a possible invasion land based assets offer a much better capability.

Somebody with the ability to really threaten Australia with invasion is going to have a massive expeditionary capabilty.
A lonely Cavour style carrier would be fair game for such a force.
A carrier would also tie down lots of RAN assets while they try to protect it. There goes your flexibility.

And why should you operate at a long logistic string in order to bring a lonely carrier to bear somewhere in the Pacific when you can wait for the enemy. The logistics for a possible foe are much more of a problem the closer he comes to Australia.

Airfields are also much harder to surpress. Add to that that Australia could add lots of aditional reserve airfields in no time if the need arises.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I still don't get how a carrier offers more protection for Australia proper.

absolutely agree.

If in the future Australia has to defend itself against a possible invasion land based assets offer a much better capability.

Somebody with the ability to really threaten Australia with invasion is going to have a massive expeditionary capabilty.
A lonely Cavour style carrier would be fair game for such a force.
A carrier would also tie down lots of RAN assets while they try to protect it. There goes your flexibility.

And why should you operate at a long logistic string in order to bring a lonely carrier to bear somewhere in the Pacific when you can wait for the enemy. The logistics for a possible foe are much more of a problem the closer he comes to Australia.

Airfields are also much harder to surpress. Add to that that Australia could add lots of aditional reserve airfields in no time if the need arises.

all of the above seem to get forgotten in these debates., however, the force planners take some of the very things you mention into account.

it is a waste of money - money that could and would be better spent in other capabilities.

 

[Sea Toby]

I wish to reveal again all this talk of one Aussie aircraft carrier far offshore such as a Fiji scenario ultimately fails without having two aircraft carriers. To provide YEAR ROUND carrier capability, at least two are required. And I could probably make a case for three...

Australia does not have nearby allies with carriers alike the Europeans in NATO...

Not only is one carrier troublesome with costs, personnel, and support requirements, building two is even more overwhelming...

Those who advocate an Aussie aircraft carrier REFUSE to admit the above... They have DREAMS of one carrier without any supporting documentation of any doctrine whatsoever...

This isn't a Walt Disney film...:el:el:el

 

[OpinionNoted]

I still don't get how a carrier offers more protection for Australia proper.

Exactly,it doesnt.
Having a carrier is a moot point if we are threatened by a major power.
Subs and a decent amount are a better solution as is greater resources thrown at keeping sub mariners happy.

post edit...and besides,us carrier battle groups have carrier ops covered so australian resources would be better spent in other areas.
At the end of the day how many subs could we buy and operate for the price of a carrier/her airwing/any additional escorts/ personell and operating costs?
And what would have the greater firepower in attacking an enemy fleet? and at a much greater range than a lone aussie carrier and her( in the australian context)a few in number escorting fleet.

 

[StevoJH]

Why is Fiji being used as an example? They only have 4 airports with runways over 1km long.

They also do not have a single military aircraft in inventory if Wikipedia is to be believed.

Why would you need a carrier to deal with that when a few Tiger ARH's can do the job instead?

They also have only three regular infantry battalions, of which two are based on the island with the capital of Fiji.

A single LHD with ARH's and a battalion from the RAR could probably do the job. Secure the airport and fly in any reinforcements required.

 

[t68]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not underestimate that having a carrier(s) in the RAN is not without expense nor do I ignore the problems faced with operating carriers or the cost involved. It all comes down to the will of the government of the time and the foresight needed by those in office thinking about the Australian defence position not only in the short 3 year electoral term but 20/30 year time frame. Currently our defence spending is roughly 1.8% of GPD which is a misleading figure to go by as a countries GDP changes from year to year and inflation cuts into defence budgets on a yearly basis. There is room in the budget for a real increase in defence spending in the immediate future.

Policy Discussion Paper - Australia Defence Association

Reserve will put end to fairness all around | The Australian

As you all know Australia is the smallest continent but the largest island in the world, but having vast expansive oceans on both sides of the country and no borders with other countries, it is in a rather envious position with the air/sea gap which is a natural defensive mechanism. No one has a crystal ball to see into the future. In the current climate with regards to Fiji Australia has the ability to intervene if need, with Canberra class should be operational in short term of 3/4 years away.

Australia itself needs not have the threat of direct invasion from a potential aggressor to have an overwhelming negative affect on the ability for the RAN to carry out its mission set of protecting Australian interests be they be in the Indian or pacific oceans or anywhere in the world. That one lonely carrier will or could have implications far exceeding foreign policy needs of Australia and other pacific island nations in our sphere of influence.

Australia must act to help protect the Pacific from Chinese dominance | Australian Conservative

http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Semaphore_2009_2.pdf

A question regarding the possible direct implications of a carrier worth, here is an extract from a book regarding the Falklands conflict and the implications of one lonely carrier of the Argentine navy.
Mike Rossiter, SINK THE BELGRANO,
“
Admiral Woodward’s main concern, as his ships steamed closer to the exclusion zone and what he knew would be the start of the fighting, was the location of the Argentine navy’s flagship, it’s aircraft carrier the Veinticinco de Mayo.

This was the ship that Woodward knew could cause serious havoc to his plans, and he had to deal with it sooner rather than latter. Woodward knew that the Argentine air force had overwhelming superiority in aircraft numbers. The key question of their effectiveness was the extant to which they would be able to use the runaways at Stanley. If they couldn’t, their range from the mainland would limit the amount of time they could spend attacking the task group and would give his Sea Harrier’s a fighting chance. The aircraft carrier was another matter, however. It was mobile and could operate with fighter protection to give the Skyhawk bombers a range that exceeded the eastern limits of the total exclusion zone. Woodward’s only protection against the carrier was the submarine screen that was in place around the Falkland’s. If they couldn’t find the carrier and deal with it, he could not take the his task force close to the Falkland’s and risk losing either HMS Hermes or Invincible.

One paper that was passed to the War Cabinet said that,

Argentina has one old carrier. However she can carry seven to nine Skyhawk aircraft and up to five Super Etendard aircraft. Both types of aircraft are capable of mounting air to air and air to surface attacks at a distance of about 400 miles from the carrier. The six Tracker aircraft can carry out radar surveillance operations up to 500 miles from the carrier, giving her the ability to direct other air and naval units into attack positions as well as using her own offensive aircraft. “



As you all know the RN was forced to expended a vast amount of time and effort into that one aircraft carrier and placed three nuclear submarine to find and sink to no avail, with the sinking of the General Belgrano it also forced the Argentine navy to put her into port in fear of losing her also with the lose of the submarine Santa Fe she could not be protected adequately.

http://www.robertcobrien.com/op-ed-...llary-clinton-as-the-obama-administratio.html