A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[Jaimito]

The only people who advocate a carrier are those who want one. As I noted earlier, Australia really doesn't NEED a light carrier... A carrier is a red herring... A false dream...

The same reasons that advocate an amphibious battalion, can advocate to support with some jets. Similarly for sea level flights, extraranged air interdiction, imagine you have something on the radar and want to know what is etc.. what i mean is that if you have jets you will use them, they are practically useful. All related to their speed and range. Speed is important.
Other thing is your list of priorities, you might want to spend money in more subs rathen than a carrier, but as said, if you have in the paper that you have to buy a sealifht ship (and can buy one that is carrier also), and you have to buy F35 (a,b,c´s) and the difference is 1000 kms of range and some bombs payload, and the real important thing about F35 is the stealth and electronics (that is why it is so expensive) and you have that also in F35b. And you have a refuelling airplane tankers fleet so that the difference in range between a´s and b´s is not importante because because you adapt your tankers contact. And buying the b´s finallly.
So you don´t come out of your budget that was initially for sealift and a´s, and end up with carrier of group of 3 Lhd stronger and more flexible (divide in 2 or 3 groups) than a Nimitz. By the face, ie free.

 

[Jaimito]

Not so. The USN operates carriers in pairs because CTOL carriers require cyclic operations and can only man the flight deck for 12 hours at a time. So for a 24-7 capability you need two, preferably three, carriers. However some smaller carriers and in V/STOL carriers are very different. They can operate 24 hours a day because they don’t have the manning demands of respoting the flight deck every hour and operating arrestor wires and catapults. The RN, Spanish Armada and Italian National Marine have extensively proven that a single V/STOL carrier can provide an effective at sea force. So to did the RAN with the Melbourne…

So that you need 2 Nimitz to face 3 Lhd because the 3 Lhd can give 24 h. jet sustainment in air.
hehe That´s because the F35b price is like 200 mill dollar ....:fly

 

[Volkodav]

It could be argued that carriers could be an adequate replacement for in-flight refuelling tankers, bare bones bases and ADG Squadrons. Also a dozen of so combat aircraft in theatre (on deck) are more effective and deliver higher sortie rates with shorter turn arounds and faster response to changing circumstances than three or four dozen ,nominally more capable, aircraft flying in from a base a couple of thousand NM away. Logistics also play a part, a carrier has fuel bunkerage and weapon magazines with resupply coming provided by an AOR / AOE, fuel and ordinance will have to be flown, sailed, driven in for deployed land based aircraft.

Depending how you look at it a carrier could actually be a cost saving when you consider an apples for apples comparison of the amount of tail required to get and keep even a couple of bombed up land based vs carrier based aircraft on station. The reason land based aircraft are seen as cheaper to own is because we like to pretend we will only ever have to use them with plenty of notice and within a suitable radius of an airbase we have had time to bring up to speed. When you factor in that we may not have access to a base near enough to where we need the aircraft the true benefits of a carrier begin to shine through.

At the end of the day the troops on the ground calling for CAS, the ship calling for AD and the friendly nation calling for both don’t care what shade of blue the pilots uniform is nor where the aircraft is based, all that matters is that it is where and when it is needed. What is the real world cost of ensuring you have two bombed up fighters where we need them when we need them?

 

[Volkodav]

When the RAAF deploys combat aircraft OS it never seems to be more than half a dozen at most and support types are often deployed singly or in pairs yet they still require a disproportionate logistics and support effort to keep them flying.

Even a light carrier (and support elements) would likely bring more strategic weight and flexibility to a theatre than our usual RAAF deployments seem to achieve. Considering that we often already have surface combatants in the area wouldn’t it make sense to re enforce an existing contribution rather than creating a new stand alone one with its own logistics overheads?

 

[Jaimito]

In NImitz the jets parked in the flight deck, like 10-20-30, are next to 2 of the catapults, and also are fledged, with the wings at half length, some of them, and so close to the catapult runway that it seems that can´t rearm them there, maybe the first of the row, nor refuel them. While in each Lhd all the parking places are compatible with refueling and rearming.

So, 3 Canberras, launch faster all the jets, and keeps higher numbers in the air (peaks and general amount of) along the 24/7 period, so they are actually more intense than a Nimitz as long as they have jp5. And important, 3 Lhd have more awareness of air space, that is that they will be zones where the Nimitz doesn´t sees anything and any of the Lhd yes, so the Nimitz jets better don´t engage hostile jets in that zone.

And if you have 2 Nimitz for the 24/7 coverage, they have to jump from activity in one carrier to other while Canberras have continuity.

 

[SASWanabe]

3 Canberras dont have as much situational awareness as 1 nimits... nimitz are CATOBAR and can launch Hawkeyes, so that argument is flawed to no end.

Nimitz are capable of carrying 90 aircraft, 3 Canberras would struggle to match that, however Nimitz have the flexibility to reduce that number and still be an effective force, so your argument about crowding and rearanging the deck is flawed aswel...

the only thing 3 Canberras have over 1 Nimitz if one gets sunk or majorly damaged you still have 2 capable of protecting it, but then any enemy capable of sinking 1 Canberra in a wartime stance could probably sink 3...

 

[Jaimito]

3 Canberras dont have as much situational awareness as 1 nimits... nimitz are CATOBAR and can launch Hawkeyes, so that argument is flawed to no end.

Nimitz are capable of carrying 90 aircraft, 3 Canberras would struggle to match that, however Nimitz have the flexibility to reduce that number and still be an effective force, so your argument about crowding and rearanging the deck is flawed aswel...

the only thing 3 Canberras have over 1 Nimitz if one gets sunk or majorly damaged you still have 2 capable of protecting it, but then any enemy capable of sinking 1 Canberra in a wartime stance could probably sink 3...

Ok Hawkeyes, at what distance they distinguish if a point in the radar is 1 jet or 3 jets together. At what distance they locate an Lhd, and i say 1 Lhd not the 3 at the same time, you will need various Hawkeyes in the air to control 3 Lhd in different locations.
Once the Hawkeye is in the air and approaches more the Lhd to distinguis better in the radar, it is seen by the Lhd. The size and dome shape of Hawkeye makes him distinguible.

Now you say that a Nimitz can carry 90 jets, well as said, carry is one thing, other thing is to handle even 70 jets with one landing runway and 3 arrestors, for example, say a jet has 3 hour of endurance, 180 minutes, and 70 jets, gives 2.5 mins per jet for landing....now 3 hour endurance for a Lhd F35b, so 180 minutes, and say 23 jets (23 x 3 Lhd = 69) that gives almost 8 minutes for each jet, so for sure each Lhd can handle better its 23 jets than the Nimitz the 70 jets, 2.5 mins per jet vs 7.8 mins per jet.

Once the Hawkeye is located by a Lhd this can concentrate up to 23 jets, for example, attacking that Hawkeye, who then calls for his jets to come and defend him, but as thought by me, 3 Lhd can sustain more jets than a Nimitz, for those battles around the Hawkeye.

But the difference between the radar coverage of Hawkeyes is not as useful as the one provided by the Lhd radar, in the aspect of guiding your jets, with the Hawkeye you cannot control 20 jets in personal engagements, you can give some info but not control them, while with the Lhd radar and the jet ground controller guy in the screen can help the jet in its surroundings.

So things are more complicated to evaluate, and you cannot say that the Hawkeye is going to win the battle.

Edit: note that if you launch a coordinated attack of many jets from 3 Lhd to a Hawkeye, for me it doesn´t matter if the Hawkeye calls the same number of jets in his defence, the mess is going to be so big that very probably the Hawkeye is going to be shot down because is slow, big, and with propellers.

 

[Todjaeger]

Ok Hawkeyes, at what distance they distinguish if a point in the radar is 1 jet or 3 jets together. At what distance they locate an Lhd, and i say 1 Lhd not the 3 at the same time, you will need various Hawkeyes in the air to control 3 Lhd in different locations.
Once the Hawkeye is in the air and approaches more the Lhd to distinguis better in the radar, it is seen by the Lhd. The size and dome shape of Hawkeye makes him distinguible.

Now you say that a Nimitz can carry 90 jets, well as said, carry is one thing, other thing is to handle even 70 jets with one landing runway and 3 arrestors, for example, say a jet has 3 hour of endurance, 180 minutes, and 70 jets, gives 2.5 mins per jet for landing....now 3 hour endurance for a Lhd F35b, so 180 minutes, and say 23 jets (23 x 3 Lhd = 69) that gives almost 8 minutes for each jet, so for sure each Lhd can handle better its 23 jets than the Nimitz the 70 jets, 2.5 mins per jet vs 7.8 mins per jet.

Once the Hawkeye is located by a Lhd this can concentrate up to 23 jets, for example, attacking that Hawkeye, who then calls for his jets to come and defend him, but as thought by me, 3 Lhd can sustain more jets than a Nimitz, for those battles around the Hawkeye.

But the difference between the radar coverage of Hawkeyes is not as useful as the one provided by the Lhd radar, in the aspect of guiding your jets, with the Hawkeye you cannot control 20 jets in personal engagements, you can give some info but not control them, while with the Lhd radar and the jet ground controller guy in the screen can help the jet in its surroundings.

So things are more complicated to evaluate, and you cannot say that the Hawkeye is going to win the battle.

While this thread has been about a 'hypothetical' RAN carrier, this is beginning to reach the absurd. A direct comparison between 3 Canberra-class LHDs and a single Nimitz-class CVN is a pointless exercise, as what and how the vessels would operate, and their respective uses are completely different. It is like saying an F-22 is better than a B-2. The conops of the F-22 and B-2 are quite different, for example, a B-2 would not be assigned a mission where it had to interceptor and engage enemy fighters, and an F-22 would not be sent on a long-ranged intercontinental deep strike mission.

I would strongly suggest that people sit down, read up on what some of the existing equipment is capable of, and where and how such capabilities fit into a force package. In the case of post above concerning the E-2C Hawkeye AWACS, what it is capable of and how it fits into a task force/force package, the information appears to be virtually completely wrong.

The printed detection range of a Hawkeye AWACS at 40,000 ft is a ~200 mile radius, but it is likely somewhat greater than that. That means that the Hawkeye should be able to detect targets that come within 200 miles of it, and relay location, heading, speed, etc to anything else present setup to receive information from the AWACS. Incidentally, AWACS stands for Airborne Warning And Control System, in short, the Hawkeye was designed to detect, relay and serve as a fighter control. It does this better than ship-based radars and controllers because it is located at a higher altitude, at 40,000 ft the radar horizon is considerably greater. The radar horizon for a ship-mounted radar is ~24 miles for aircraft and objects 'on the deck' at essentially sea level. The radar horizon for a system at the altitude a Hawkeye operates at is ~280 miles when looking at targets 'on the deck'.

But the difference between the radar coverage of Hawkeyes is not as useful as the one provided by the Lhd radar, in the aspect of guiding your jets, with the Hawkeye you cannot control 20 jets in personal engagements, you can give some info but not control them, while with the Lhd radar and the jet ground controller guy in the screen can help the jet in its surroundings.

The above quote states in the bolded area that the Hawkeye radar cannot do what the LHD radar can do, in terms of detection and aircraft guidance. While this was stated as fact, it is also very much incorrect and indicates a fundamental ignorance by the poster on current radar, comms and datalink systems, as well as limitations imposed upon detection systems by the curvature of the Earth.

It is one thing to have ideas of what can or perhaps should be done. It is quite different to make statements or claims about what a system is capable of. Next time, if a claim is going to be made, please back that claim up with proof.

-Cheers

 

[Jaimito]

Sorry, note that i have edited my previous comment.

We were talking about the carriers issues, but in reality, the Hawkeye is detected before by the Spy radar, before the Hawkeye detects the Lhd, and the 3 Lhd has a bigger first punch that 1 NImitz (lifts, fuel stations, weapons lifts, parking places compatible with refuellilng and rearming), all this factor make that once detected the Hawkeye the biggest possible punch is launched against him...and very fast jets, once the Hawkeye notices the wave of jets coming against him he will go away, will he have time to scape from the battle round him? But for the moment it hasn´t discovered the Lhd.


Apologies if i have some mistakes.

 

[Jaimito]

The above quote states in the bolded area that the Hawkeye radar cannot do what the LHD radar can do, in terms of detection and aircraft guidance. While this was stated as fact, it is also very much incorrect and indicates a fundamental ignorance by the poster on current radar, comms and datalink systems, as well as limitations imposed upon detection systems by the curvature of the Earth.

It is one thing to have ideas of what can or perhaps should be done. It is quite different to make statements or claims about what a system is capable of. Next time, if a claim is going to be made, please back that claim up with proof.

-Cheers

We are commenting, we learn while we discuss, no one has to take my statements as absolute, at all.
What i mean is in the Hawkeye how many operators do you have? Maybe 2, in the Lhd how many operator do you have in the screen with the radar info? I think it was 14 or 16 places for operators with radar screens.
Now i think you are meaning that the Hawkeye, inside some range, can datalink the radar picture to the ship, and the operators in the ship control their jets? But i was comparing just from the Hawkeye, not using the NImitz. Because if the Nimitz cant see that space with its own radar maybe yes, it achieves to have datalink and comms for receiving the map and communicate with his jets. Is that what you mean? But how far, how fast the comms wrt the Lhd comms, etc.

What i mean is that 2 operators in the Hawkeye cannot control a battle of 30 jets each for example.

Cheers.

 

[gf0012-aust]

What i mean is that 2 operators in the Hawkeye cannot control a battle of 30 jets each for example.

Cheers.

in "real life" they can actually battle manage much much more than this....

 

[SASWanabe]

Sorry, note that i have edited my previous comment.

We were talking about the carriers issues, but in reality, the Hawkeye is detected before by the Spy radar, before the Hawkeye detects the Lhd, and the 3 Lhd has a bigger first punch that 1 NImitz (lifts, fuel stations, weapons lifts, parking places compatible with refuellilng and rearming), all this factor make that once detected the Hawkeye the biggest possible punch is launched against him...and very fast jets, once the Hawkeye notices the wave of jets coming against him he will go away, will he have time to scape from the battle round him? But for the moment it hasn´t discovered the Lhd.


Apologies if i have some mistakes.

if were talking a hypothetical Carrier v Carrier (ie only the carrier and "It's Aircraft")

The Canberras come with GIRAFFE Radar (not Spy). if someone has info on an upgrade i'll take that back.

i think the point Todjaeger was trying to make was that a Hawkeye will see an LHD long before the LHD spots it...

Of note is that the whole point of the F-35 is that Radar is taken out of the equation so a first strike of 40 F-35 on 3 LHD let alone 1 would do some damage if their stealth is effective. still quite alot even if its not.

The point im making here is that CATOBAR carriers offer more than STOVL carriers just by the sheer fact your not limited to STOVL aircraft.

 

[SASWanabe]

in "real life" they can actually battle manage much much more than this....

dont know if this has any bearing on that but...

quote from Wikipedia.

The latest version can track more than 2,000 targets simultaneously (while at the same time, detecting 20,000 simultaneously) to a range greater than 400 mi (640 km) and simultaneously guide 40–100 air to air intercepts or air to surface engagements.

 

[Todjaeger]

We are commenting, we learn while we discuss, no one has to take my statements as absolute, at all.

A statement or claim is either factually correct, or it is wrong.

This leads to a great deal of trouble when people present a statement, as opposed to their opinion of something. Therefore, when posting one's opinions, it behooves one to make clear that it is their opinion, and not a fact.

In the case of an E-2C Hawkeye AWACS, there are typically 3 operators of one sort or another, but as indicated above, the radar system at altitude provides a significant sensor footprint (200+ mile radius) able to detect and track several hundred to several thousand contacts, and vector assets in as needed. A radar system of the exact same power, with three times the operators, could not do the same as effectively if it was located on a ground or ship-based mounting.

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

dont know if this has any bearing on that but...

quote from Wikipedia.

It does have some bearing...

I was understating on purpose......

or to give another example. in another post mention as made about problems managing dozens of contacts.

modern track management systems already interrogate and sift/manage over a million contacts per hour.....

the internet is a wonderful thing, but the real facts are often not on it - and the problem is that some will quote the internet as "proof of life" in their arguments when the foundation data is absolute crap.

 

[AegisFC]

In the case of an E-2C Hawkeye AWACS, there are typically 3 operators of one sort or another, but as indicated above, the radar system at altitude provides a significant sensor footprint (200+ mile radius) able to detect and track several hundred to several thousand contacts, and vector assets in as needed. A radar system of the exact same power, with three times the operators, could not do the same as effectively if it was located on a ground or ship-based mounting.

-Cheers

In the Hawkeye 2000 the co-pilot can turn his avionics screen into another mission console when not needed to assist the pilot giving the plane 4 operators.

 

[AegisFC]

We are commenting, we learn while we discuss, no one has to take my statements as absolute, at all.
What i mean is in the Hawkeye how many operators do you have? Maybe 2, in the Lhd how many operator do you have in the screen with the radar info? I think it was 14 or 16 places for operators with radar screens.
Now i think you are meaning that the Hawkeye, inside some range, can datalink the radar picture to the ship, and the operators in the ship control their jets? But i was comparing just from the Hawkeye, not using the NImitz. Because if the Nimitz cant see that space with its own radar maybe yes, it achieves to have datalink and comms for receiving the map and communicate with his jets. Is that what you mean? But how far, how fast the comms wrt the Lhd comms, etc.

What i mean is that 2 operators in the Hawkeye cannot control a battle of 30 jets each for example.

Cheers.

I suggest you do some more research before commenting in the future you just make yourself look like a fool. For example the Smithsonian Air and Space magazine has a WONDERFUL article about the Hawkeye and how it operates that I found with just a simple search.

 

[AegisFC]

While this thread has been about a 'hypothetical' RAN carrier, this is beginning to reach the absurd.

Agreed, the thread is quickly approaching the point where it will be locked yet again.

A direct comparison between 3 Canberra-class LHDs and a single Nimitz-class CVN is a pointless exercise, as what and how the vessels would operate, and their respective uses are completely different. It is like saying an F-22 is better than a B-2. The conops of the F-22 and B-2 are quite different, for example, a B-2 would not be assigned a mission where it had to interceptor and engage enemy fighters, and an F-22 would not be sent on a long-ranged intercontinental deep strike mission.

The hull form of the Canberra's is wrong to make it a good carrier (amphibs typically have flat bottoms, great for carrying a lot of stuff but not the greatest for aircraft), it is slower than ideal and the other issues have been brought up ad nauseous and this "discussion" is getting tiring.

 

[SASWanabe]

i think the point he was trying to make was that 3 small carriers offer more ability than 1 large, i was just pointing out that larger carriers have their advantages over smaller.

the comparison i was making was CATOBAR over STOVL sure some people might say F-35b are better than c (i dont see how) but if they are the added capabilitys of a CATOBAR carrier would make up for it.

i personaly think if the RAN were to buy a carrier it should be something along the lines of Cavour.

 

[Jaimito]

I suggest you do some more research before commenting in the future you just make yourself look like a fool. For example the Smithsonian Air and Space magazine has a WONDERFUL article about the Hawkeye and how it operates that I found with just a simple search.

Why do i have to know at detail how it works the latest version of Hawkeye? I am asking, sugesting, and talking hypothetically, giving my personal opinion, who looks like a fool is the people, like you or others, who don´t understand that i can be wrong or corrected, if corresponds, which i have my doubts that correspond in the Hawkeye issue, which would be just simply a minor mistake in this case.