The Japanese Navy wanted to invade but their Army was definately against it, they knew they didn't have the required manpower of weight of equipment and were probably aware that we had three armoured divisions waiting for them by mid 1942.
A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?
- Thread starter t68
- Start date
- Status
how about Moreton bay? you could do it for both the Bay itself and the old navy base
Except RAN involvement. As I mentioned earlier the RAN’s only involvement in this battle was HMAS Arunta running away to Port Moresby as soon as the Jap fleet was detected heading into the area.
Even if the sealift ship (JP 2048/4C) is a second hand Bay class there is no reason the RAN would have to call it HMAS X Bay. Naming it after certain east coast training locations would work for a class of three: HMA Ships Jervis Bay, Shoalwater Bay and Tin Can Bay. The last being of course the best name even if it’s officially known as Wide Bay Training Area.
HMAS Anzac commemorates the Anzac landings at Gallipoli technically being named for Anzac Cove rather than the Australian & New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC). HMAS Moreton is a good idea (no need to Bay it) as it was the Navy’s amphibious base (if you could call it that, rather than up river annex to Bulimba) for a few years. One thing about locality names is the RAN tries to balance the distribution between the states. So there are an equal number of ship names for each state.
Hm, not sure about that. Certainly the first two ANZACs were named after the Corps and as a result the names were always capitalised (even before we started to do that so that ships names stood out in typed corro). Was working for Rod Taylor when the names were selected but I don't remember any discussion other than the fact that as the Project was joint with NZ it would be good to pick a name that had meaning for both countries. However, I do know why one was named Toowoomba - I was pushing for Vampire and Vendetta for the last two and my views were about as relevant then as they are now....
t68
Well-Known Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #426
It seems like Russell Office looked into the HMS Ark Royal, but the main reason given was crew requirements would take away training for Canberra class and states Kanimbla/Manoora to solder on till 2012 and 2014 respectably.
E-mail received from office of the defence minister, info from another source.
E-mail received from office of the defence minister, info from another source.
As I have already said, we onboard haven't heard anything about AR, no rumours, nothing whatsoever. We have heard that the first LPA would go in 2012, but not which one, although it's pretty obvious as to which one it will be.
Also heard another old ship with be de-commisioned in 2012.
I think this thread is just a pipe dream.
Only option is to fully fit one LHD for STOVL. Pick up the RN Bay Class LSD.
Off topic, Swerve, have you or anyone else put any more thought into Gowind corvettes.
Regarding Warship Could be Sunk in Cost Review article 28th Oct.
I have researched potential OCV’s since the 2009 Defence White Paper was released.
Dropping or postponing project SEA 1180 would be fool hardy.
SEA 1180 will ad balance to our fleet and ad capabilities that will be needed (ASW, ISR) in the future.
I came to the conclusion that the only answer to the requirements set down in the Defence White Paper (Offshore & Littoral) was to use a Corvette combination. Ten Austal MRV 86 Corvettes and ten Gowind Presence Corvettes. The initial cost comes to just over 4.2 billion (US). Gowinds allow for upgrades in future conflict.
Using this combination would allow increased endurance/capability to Green and Blue sea operations.
One down side, approximately 270 more personnel required. The benefit would out weigh the cost!
How would a 2000 tonne ship pull up next to a fishing boat? It wouldn’t, even the Armidale would do the same thing. Deploy a Zodiac with boarding party! It’s what the OCV can do that the Armidale can’t is the valid point!
For consideration.
Cheers.
Merry Christmas to all!!:frosty
Only option is to fully fit one LHD for STOVL. Pick up the RN Bay Class LSD.
Off topic, Swerve, have you or anyone else put any more thought into Gowind corvettes.
Regarding Warship Could be Sunk in Cost Review article 28th Oct.
I have researched potential OCV’s since the 2009 Defence White Paper was released.
Dropping or postponing project SEA 1180 would be fool hardy.
SEA 1180 will ad balance to our fleet and ad capabilities that will be needed (ASW, ISR) in the future.
I came to the conclusion that the only answer to the requirements set down in the Defence White Paper (Offshore & Littoral) was to use a Corvette combination. Ten Austal MRV 86 Corvettes and ten Gowind Presence Corvettes. The initial cost comes to just over 4.2 billion (US). Gowinds allow for upgrades in future conflict.
Using this combination would allow increased endurance/capability to Green and Blue sea operations.
One down side, approximately 270 more personnel required. The benefit would out weigh the cost!
How would a 2000 tonne ship pull up next to a fishing boat? It wouldn’t, even the Armidale would do the same thing. Deploy a Zodiac with boarding party! It’s what the OCV can do that the Armidale can’t is the valid point!
For consideration.
Cheers.
Merry Christmas to all!!:frosty
Would be worthwhile waiting for France evaluation of the Gowind before sale, but i have taken a notice of there fleet and future. At the moment im all for future look at the new BRAVE class RAS ships, as this is to replace the french durance class ships of which HMAS Success was built.
The steps they are taken with the Gowind to be trialled with French navy is something i have mentioned previously as a good idea when it comes to corvettes and patrol boats, show the vessel which you want to sell, and add a little bit more for overnight delievery...well, there abouts. A country that has a vessel lined up for entry to port in 3 months instead of 3 years works favourably for the polictical sense, and capability wise. You get what you want, sooner rather then building for later.
The question for the Gowind is, do they have Hydro capability and minesweeping, as the corvette is to replace 3 classes of ship in one go.
Ive already mentioned the bay as a better choice for Tobrokens replacement now rather then later(this wouldnt be what storesbasher is saying will be decommish, as ive got $50 on her out lasting both LPAs
Obviously this is a little off track and should head into RAN thread
Did you notice the title of the thread? Something about "hypothetical"...
Hypotetically the Ran decides to put F35bs in the 3rd Canberra:
The Lhd has 8 spots, 6 in the run and 2 as the parking places, 1 big next to the weapons lift, and another 1 big between the island and the back Sea Ram, so:
-the 6th spot is the one prepared specially for the Osprey, it is the closest spot to the back lift, in the run.
-the back parking spot can handle a Chinook without problems.
-you need 160 mts of run for the F35b, i supposed loaded, it takes up to the 4th spot, and taking into account speed of ship, sky jump angle and hypothenuse of the sky jump that gives a few more mts, let´s conclude that the 4th spot is enough for beginning the run of F35b.
-the fore parking spot can be used for:
-rearming and refuelling and parking for 2 F35b´s.
-or for 1 F35b and a decent spot for rotary Uav´s.
-so there is left the 5th spot for:
-use for landing F35b´s and rearming and refuelling and launch 2 in row (4th and 5th spots).
-use for medium helo, Mrh60 Sikorsky, or Nh90, or Tiger, or the rotary Uav.
-parking places left for helos:
-next and parallely to the island can be parked a few helos, it seem with space for the weapons lorry to go and come, and for extracting any helo from that row. Space wrt the F35b run and 4th spot.
So the impressive is a simultaneous operation of Chinook, Osprey, F35b, Medium helo, Uavs which luckly have the inner lift to the heavy deck close to the fore aircraft lift, so you can have lots of helos and F35b´s in the upper, and still have room for dozens of Uavs in the lower, upto 18 t. Uav (by crane) or 20 t. (by inner lift).
In fact it was told that in the upper the maximun Chinook capacity was 10, but now is 16 from videos, also the location for inner lift has changed, ie like the upper is bigger than previewed?
Operations in the F35b part as example: as you lift up F35b you launch them, as you land them and want to guard them, then you lift it down and park it. When there is no ops in the runway then you move them out to change order if you want to have them all used more or less the same. It is important to have more than one group/lorry for moving the F35b in the upper, and of course in the fligth deck. Similarly movement of helos.
Edit: the good thing of F35b is they can land 2 or 3 almost simultaneously, refuel them with 2 independent refuelling stations in the flight deck (at least) , reload them and launch them by couples. When you land 1 or 2 or 3 you decide if to park it in the fore parking spot for rearming-fuel and launch (size for 2), or to lift it down, or to refuel it in the 4th (and 5th if) spot.
The Lhd has 8 spots, 6 in the run and 2 as the parking places, 1 big next to the weapons lift, and another 1 big between the island and the back Sea Ram, so:
-the 6th spot is the one prepared specially for the Osprey, it is the closest spot to the back lift, in the run.
-the back parking spot can handle a Chinook without problems.
-you need 160 mts of run for the F35b, i supposed loaded, it takes up to the 4th spot, and taking into account speed of ship, sky jump angle and hypothenuse of the sky jump that gives a few more mts, let´s conclude that the 4th spot is enough for beginning the run of F35b.
-the fore parking spot can be used for:
-rearming and refuelling and parking for 2 F35b´s.
-or for 1 F35b and a decent spot for rotary Uav´s.
-so there is left the 5th spot for:
-use for landing F35b´s and rearming and refuelling and launch 2 in row (4th and 5th spots).
-use for medium helo, Mrh60 Sikorsky, or Nh90, or Tiger, or the rotary Uav.
-parking places left for helos:
-next and parallely to the island can be parked a few helos, it seem with space for the weapons lorry to go and come, and for extracting any helo from that row. Space wrt the F35b run and 4th spot.
So the impressive is a simultaneous operation of Chinook, Osprey, F35b, Medium helo, Uavs which luckly have the inner lift to the heavy deck close to the fore aircraft lift, so you can have lots of helos and F35b´s in the upper, and still have room for dozens of Uavs in the lower, upto 18 t. Uav (by crane) or 20 t. (by inner lift).
In fact it was told that in the upper the maximun Chinook capacity was 10, but now is 16 from videos, also the location for inner lift has changed, ie like the upper is bigger than previewed?
Operations in the F35b part as example: as you lift up F35b you launch them, as you land them and want to guard them, then you lift it down and park it. When there is no ops in the runway then you move them out to change order if you want to have them all used more or less the same. It is important to have more than one group/lorry for moving the F35b in the upper, and of course in the fligth deck. Similarly movement of helos.
Edit: the good thing of F35b is they can land 2 or 3 almost simultaneously, refuel them with 2 independent refuelling stations in the flight deck (at least) , reload them and launch them by couples. When you land 1 or 2 or 3 you decide if to park it in the fore parking spot for rearming-fuel and launch (size for 2), or to lift it down, or to refuel it in the 4th (and 5th if) spot.
Last edited:
I think they should realize the differences between F35a and F35b, if it is just some range and small payload, maybe makes sense go for the full batch on F35b´s so that in the 50 year life period of the jet Australia wont regret of not getting the F35b. In those 50 years Australia might change their mind and really have the capacity to project power and air superiority where needed, land or sea.
Lots of F35b´s. 3 Canberras Lhd´s. Impressive air power and sealift.
Anyway thinkin sometimes seems helos carrying radars can make better job than jets to locate hostile ships in the sourraundings 100-200 kms round our fleet, the helo is stationary so maybe better to focus a radar. And had to be defended from hostile missiles with the Essm and Aegis (hope they can intercept (i heard mistakes on intercepting ballistic missiles with land launched missiles)). I am talking the helo is working above the Awd, and from altitude its radar sees surface away.
Lots of F35b´s. 3 Canberras Lhd´s. Impressive air power and sealift.
Anyway thinkin sometimes seems helos carrying radars can make better job than jets to locate hostile ships in the sourraundings 100-200 kms round our fleet, the helo is stationary so maybe better to focus a radar. And had to be defended from hostile missiles with the Essm and Aegis (hope they can intercept (i heard mistakes on intercepting ballistic missiles with land launched missiles)). I am talking the helo is working above the Awd, and from altitude its radar sees surface away.
Some are forgetting the price difference between an A and a B version of the F-35... Its not a million or two, but more like ten to twenty million per aircraft, a less capable aircraft considering range and payload... I can understand an argument if the B cost less than an A, but it don't... The British have seen the price figures, and have decided to go with the C...
Maybe i´ve been a bit abstract in the example of F35b operations part, this example is more practical:
-why landing F35bs one, refuel it.., launch and call for the next to do the same, it can be saved time making the most of simultaneously land 4 F35bs, as 5 spots of runway used for F35b, so just 2 big helos spots in the back part for helos ops. If you land a cycle of 4 jets, you can refuel 2 in the 4th and 5th spot, and the other 2 move them to the fore parking places for jets and do the same with the fore fuel station and launch them by couples, mimimizing time employed. So:
-need at least 4 groups of people to move jets in the flight deck and other 4 gruops for munition.
-need at 4 gruops os people to move jets in the upper deck.
-apart people for the helos.
Edit: touching perfection would be landing the 4 jets in the 4 spots space, move 2 of the to the fore refuelling-parking places, 1 to the fore lift and the last in the launching spot, so the 5th spot for the helos and hence 3 spots for helos while keeping the 4-jet cycle.
:cop
-why landing F35bs one, refuel it.., launch and call for the next to do the same, it can be saved time making the most of simultaneously land 4 F35bs, as 5 spots of runway used for F35b, so just 2 big helos spots in the back part for helos ops. If you land a cycle of 4 jets, you can refuel 2 in the 4th and 5th spot, and the other 2 move them to the fore parking places for jets and do the same with the fore fuel station and launch them by couples, mimimizing time employed. So:
-need at least 4 groups of people to move jets in the flight deck and other 4 gruops for munition.
-need at 4 gruops os people to move jets in the upper deck.
-apart people for the helos.
Edit: touching perfection would be landing the 4 jets in the 4 spots space, move 2 of the to the fore refuelling-parking places, 1 to the fore lift and the last in the launching spot, so the 5th spot for the helos and hence 3 spots for helos while keeping the 4-jet cycle.
:cop
Buying a 3rd LHD wouldnt work... they are designed for helicopter ops and amphibious ops. they carry nowhere near enough fuel for jet aircraft. for it to be an effective carrier it would need a near full redesign to launch and sustain a worthwhile amount of jets.
A 3rd Lhd as carrier has the good thing that can be used as a tremendous sealift ship with 2 full decks for vehicles. So a 3rd Lhd while not giving the best performance as carrier or light carrier it will some good job and if oilers in fleet it will do the whole job, and apart of that all the sealift and pure Lhd opportunities for showing muscle. If you buy an optimal carrier you buy 1 ship if you buy a 3rd Canberra you buy 3 more ships. Apart many points in favour even for Australian industry involved.
But the F35b have longer range than Harriers, so maybe you don´t even need the 4-jet cycle landing, simply a 3-jet cycle.
The only reason to purchase a 3rd LHD is to have a 3rd LHD ! No more no less. If you want a carrier purchase a carrier
if your that desperate for air cover we'd be better of buying Invincible, patching the holes in her deck and towing her behind a couple ANZACs :crazy
Comparing the benefits of optimal jp5 load for a light carrier designed in the Lhd size to the nowadays load of jp5 of the Lhd, it is that instead of being able to sustain all the F35b in air for 1 week you do it for 2 weeks (i would say at most). And that is little thing compared to have in the same ship a big sealift ship, and a Lhd with the dock. And still less compared to the fleet oiler.
Apart we don´t know how big is the extra jp5 load in the carrier mode of the Spanish Lhd, extra wrt to the normal 800 t.
Apart we don´t know how big is the extra jp5 load in the carrier mode of the Spanish Lhd, extra wrt to the normal 800 t.
Why build an LHD when you want a carrier? An LHD would be a compromised carrier at best and the required modifications may well be detrimental to its original amphibious role as well. I would suggest that a carrier would be more effective swung into a supporting LPH role than a LHD would be in the carrier role.
If you had the money and the requirement for carrier air power a purpose designed carrier would be better value for money than a third LHD.
The truth that many seem to forget is that aircraft making up the airgroup will cost more than the platform its self. The carrier however will last much longer than the aircraft it enters service with so the requirement for it to be able to operate an as yet undefined future type is a must. Logic dictates that if you want sea based airpower you acquire a platform that can be economically operated over the long term and can operate a variety of MOTS types in its airgroup and is not limited by its design characteristics in what future types it can operate.
This suggests a large deck, including an angled or parallel landing deck, a large hanger with sufficiently large elevators so as not to prevent buying new gen MOTS aircraft, i.e. a platform that will be capable of cross decking anything a Gerald Ford Class CVN can operate. This would also require cats and traps, or the space and weight for them if F-35B is selected as the initial fighter type.
Such a ship need not be significantly more expensive than an LHD yet will likely be fitted out with high end command, control and communication systems which will drive up the price. The size required to operate USN aircraft would result in a large ship with plenty of spare realestate that is unlikely to be vacant for long, filling this space with desirable gear will also drive up costs.
It all comes down to what you need and if are prepared to pay for it, including all of the overheads. (think additional AWDs, upspecing the ANZAC replacements, recasting the OCVs as combat capable escorts and increasing our replenishment capability, to list a few).
- Status