A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[Jaimito]

I have to edit that if you are going to land a group of 3 each 19 minutes, then you must launch them in similar steps of 19 minutes, otherwise you will need to study that. So at least you can put all 28 jets in the air in 3 hours (3 jets each 19 minutes (easy because they´ll be ready with time)). Hence you don´t need 2 free parking places to increase (once first landings come) by +2, +2, +2, because you´ve launched them all already. It doesn´t mean you cannot make the first launch of jets faster than 3 per 19 minutes, but you´d had to call a group/s before their 3 h.flight.

So in the case of 28 jets, and 2 helos next to the island (along the runway), once you´ve launched the 1st 2 jets then you have an spot available permanently, until you park back all 28.

So before any jet launching, deploy the Sar helo for the pilots, using the runway, launch the 1st 2 jets, and you have the helo spot free for both helos, until you park back all 28.

To the limit.

 

[SASWanabe]

i think i can safely say, no1 cares... The LHDs are purely that Landing Helicopter Docks, they land helicopters not F-35B so you shouldnt even bother doing maths, cause (im sure im not the only one) i normaly lose interest after the first 2 lines of your posts.

 

[gf0012-aust]

-but ok, let´s say the Nimitz can do that. It is actually the normal amount of jets that carries a Nimitz, but remember carry is not the same as to handle, you might carry more than you can handle to share the jets and keep hours of flight similar in all of them.
-so 4 Nimitz at this config give 40 x 4 is 160 jets, but it is 12 hour turns,so 24 h. a day is 80 jets.
-note that if we use 50 jets give a dispatchin time per group of 3 of 21 minutes, you really might close to the limit with 50 jets.

Nimitz class already handle 60+ aircraft at a peacetime level.

At warfighting levels the carriers were designed to be able to fit and deploy with 95+ aircraft and the associated change in tempo. wartime tempo is exponentially greater by some margin.

The above is an example of how your assumed facts are at a foundation level flawed and you compound the original problem by then extrapolating tactical fits which as a result, are also flawed.

We have been more than accomodating in trying to keep this on a reality curve. You've had no less than 4 Mods advise you of this, you've had more than 6 people who have direct operational or functional involvement advise you, you've had people like Abe who is very very well connected and knows what can be said within OPSEC constraints and what can be released publcly from a defence sector journalists perspective also provide input.

You need to change your approach. When professionals and experienced people give robust and accurate advice, it behooves people to make the effort to listen and pause. It is borderline offensive to ignore commentary and continue on with a train of logic which has been repeatedly challenged, refuted and countered. These people have a day job, they come on here to share and discuss and don't need to spend their spare time wasting it with circuitous debates that are borderline going around and around in circles.

I suggest that you pause for a few days, take stock of your approach and then re-engage once you're refreshed.

 

[Volkodav]

Interesting, thanks for that. Not sure about the civillian spec though, but also this can be done quicker and more local content, which = jobs created by the government which is a good thing in the current climate. This would allow them to have the Cavour more or less perm setup as a carrier, with possible mods and improvements over time in future refits, I would see very little need for her to do otherwise with this coming ?
Will be interesting to see what they go for ? maybe a dumbed down JC1 or Mistral ?

I can't find it at the moment but I have seen a sketch of the Italian LHD and I believe it is a unique design.

They seem to be going the way of a Carrier and two LHDs with an LHA that is able to swing between roles as required.

If (and it is a very big if) we bought Queen Elisabeth in her original form with F-35B and recast the Strategic lift Ship as a STOVL LHA we would have a similar if not superior force.

The issue, besides cost and crewing, would be the reduction in amphibious lift from what has been planned. This would require an expansion in capability of the proposed LCH replacements or perhaps an acceleration of the AOR replacement with the new ship designed with a significant lift capability to replace Success and possibly Sirius.

On the affordability manning side of the issue, dare I suggest (perhaps naively) that the Mining Industry actually pay a fair share (i.e. more than Rudd wanted) of the massive profits they are making out of exporting Australia’s mineral wealth? I know they will yell and scream but they will still make massive after tax profits and any temporary slow down in the industry that results from them paying their share will actually have a beneficial effect on inflation and the ADF’s retention of skilled technical personnel. The extra funds in the federal coffers could pay for this new fleet, its crew, much of the ADFs wish list in general, as well as for all of the infrastructure and other planned initiatives.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If (and it is a very big if) we bought Queen Elisabeth in her original form with F-35B and recast the Strategic lift Ship as a STOVL LHA we would have a similar if not superior force.

I don’t see how the sealift capability comes into it. It is required to sustain our LHDs and their amphibious ready group as they deploy and despite being rather cheap is a vital if unglamorous role. Italy may not have this requirement because they have better access to merchant marine support and/or are planning shorter range operations in the Mediterranean (or none of the above). If the RAN wanted a carrier (back to the hypothetical thread) and could only afford a single hull (as in the UK’s CVF) then they wouldn’t need a gap fill capability to sustain flight training when the carrier is in refit because we would have the two LHDs. Which were designed for this kind of back fill capability by the Spanish.

On the affordability manning side of the issue, dare I suggest (perhaps naively) that the Mining Industry actually pay a fair share (i.e. more than Rudd wanted) of the massive profits they are making out of exporting Australia’s mineral wealth? I know they will yell and scream but they will still make massive after tax profits and any temporary slow down in the industry that results from them paying their share will actually have a beneficial effect on inflation and the ADF’s retention of skilled technical personnel. The extra funds in the federal coffers could pay for this new fleet, its crew, much of the ADFs wish list in general, as well as for all of the infrastructure and other planned initiatives.

Australia can afford to spend a lot more on Defence. Even an increase from the current <2% to >2.5% would pay for many new capabilities. Of course an even better way to pay for expansion would be to cut the administration load on Defence. Since we are spending around half of the net Defence budget on administering the force to little or no benefit of anyone except those doing the administering this could free up a lot of money. It’s a very sad state of affairs that the percentage of GDP spent on defence has staid static while the GDP has increased hugely and our defence capability has remained static. The black hole is between Capital and Russell Hill wasting money on stupid crap.

 

[Volkodav]

Australia can afford to spend a lot more on Defence. Even an increase from the current <2% to >2.5% would pay for many new capabilities. Of course an even better way to pay for expansion would be to cut the administration load on Defence. Since we are spending around half of the net Defence budget on administering the force to little or no benefit of anyone except those doing the administering this could free up a lot of money. It’s a very sad state of affairs that the percentage of GDP spent on defence has staid static while the GDP has increased hugely and our defence capability has remained static. The black hole is between Capital and Russell Hill wasting money on stupid crap.

I notice that APDR often questions the size and role of DMO and highlights its size and cost in comparison to other nations.

A lot of it seems to be tit for tat expansion that doesn’t value add. We created a new section at work in response to a CoA requirement that was placed upon us, about 12 months later DMO basically mirrored our structure, creating and filling new positions as they went. The thing is I don’t know what they do as our team is doing the work, I assume they are checking the work our people do. The question is why push a requirement onto industry if they don’t trust industry to do it? They should either do it themselves or leave it up to industry, this duplication is pointless waste.

Incidentally the type of requirement I am referring to is non value adding it’s self as it and similar requirements fall into the assurance basket, yes it needs to be done but not by several different sections in several different departments in different companies and organisations.

The CoA seems to be so concerned about probity, propriety and governance that they are building taller and taller stovepipes then forcing industry to follow suit. This creates road blocks making industry inefficient, the CoA then hires external auditors to find out what the issues are and then blames industry for the inefficient structures that were forced upon them by the CoA.

 

[Marc 1]

The CoA seems to be so concerned about probity, propriety and governance that they are building taller and taller stovepipes then forcing industry to follow suit. This creates road blocks making industry inefficient, the CoA then hires external auditors to find out what the issues are and then blames industry for the inefficient structures that were forced upon them by the CoA.

Straight from the script writers of "Yes Minister" and would be equally funny if it didn't involve our dollars...

 

[Volkodav]

Straight from the script writers of "Yes Minister" and would be equally funny if it didn't involve our dollars...

I should add that we have a DMO guy on our team and he is outstanding with his knowledge and experience facilitating us in doing our jobs better, it sure helps having the customer on hand to answer questions and clarify matters. This function of DMO I have no issue with, it is the redundant layer upon layer of bureaucracy that irks me, the uncoordinated delegations and the difficulty in getting a workable decision made and adhered to.

As an example one of the most contentious and difficult to resolve areas in warship procurement is, believe it or not, décor. The amount of pointless running around that goes on is unbelievable. If we were to buy Queen Elisabeth then her delivery would probably be delayed 12 to 18 months while various parties argue of the fit out of the captain’s cabin and ward room.

 

[alexsa]

Straight from the script writers of "Yes Minister" and would be equally funny if it didn't involve our dollars...

All of the DMO/DoD issues would suggest off the shelf purchases would be best where practical. With the Collins replacement that may be a moot point as only the RAN and the Japanese SDF run a boat of the type considered necessary. However, for a carrier then a sensible solution (hypothetical) would be to leverage off the apparent Spanish intention to base their next carrier on the LHD hull as an LHA. This provides some commonality and would allow fixed wing assets to use more that one deck occassional operations but provides a platform that can sustain operations.

This being said I suspect we will still be having this day dream in 10 years time.

 

[OpinionNoted]

Can a queen elizabeth be purchased for the ran if or when for sale and its aircraft complement purchased at a latter date?...if govenment allows fixed wing air back into ran.
Say get the ship and even if in dry dock here or floating alongside is ithat something beyond the realms of possibility?
Fancifull scenario yes,but would it be completely absurd?...ship when available and aircraft at a latter date...sorta fitted for but not with aquisition lol.

additionally-if never fully utilized in ran service it could be sold back to the royal navy if they wanted it.

edit-also mabey not purchase fighters for ran but instead run raaf b model f35's off it.
Mabey utilized as a fast jet carrier when needed and to keep raaf pilots current on flying on and off a carrier and whatever else is needed for their proficiency?

or c model f35's.

 

[jeffb]

Surely the focus would be on operation of UAVs for ASW, AEW, EW, etc rather than operating a handful of fast jets? The ADF would be better off spending all this hypothetical money on UAV development and trialling them on the LHDs (or just build more subs).

 

[OpinionNoted]

Surely the focus would be on operation of UAVs for ASW, AEW, EW, etc rather than operating a handful of fast jets? The ADF would be better off spending all this hypothetical money on UAV development and trialling them on the LHDs (or just build more subs).

Yep more subs agreed...but say if ran saw a carrier as a needed asset for the not to distant future or were gearing up to put in a big effort to government on the virtues of having 1,can a bare bones queen elizabeth (as in utilizing it as least a possible and mainly to keep raaf pilots proficient on it,having it there when it was urgently needed.) be aquired if and when available .
Would it be workable flying raaf jets off?
If put up for sale is this THE opportunity of a life time for the ran to be able to get a carrier of this size?...and again only utilized for pilot proficency and seaman proficency plus there to be used when urgenlty needed.

edit-im pro sub 1st and this is a hypothetical thread so is it all beyond the realms of possibility or doability in regards to how adf force strucure is set up?;;;as i wouldnt have a clue so be good to hear military and defpro comments on the feasability of such.

 

[JoeMcFriday]

Straight from the script writers of "Yes Minister" and would be equally funny if it didn't involve our dollars...

Never has a truer word been said!
I am convinced that program [and Yes Prime Minister] were plagiarised from the secret training manuals developed over thousands of years by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. This system has reached its zenith in the modern political formats, no accountability, no responsibility, no decisions,perfection in obfuscation and avoidance techniques, constant employment through regime change and a lifetime of benefits, sideways promotion for failure [called taking one for the team]... it's a beautiful thing isn't it? LOL

As to the 'hypothetical carrier' and associated budget, well informed voices have indicated [correctly IMO] we could afford a CV just not at the budgetary limits currently imposed on the ADF by the politicians and hampered by the systemic bloat also well reported.

If I were to choose a capability level it would be for a Queen Elizabeth type, [with EMALS].
A full sized carrier, not a half arsed hybrid. As Abe [prominent amongst others] has clearly argued even one of these brings many more positives to the table than negatives and I for one cannot see where we MUST have a CV on either coast at all times.

I am aware of maintenance needs [downtime] but I believe Abe has correctly indicated the work around to that more than clear enough to quell uninformed argument about having only one.
I also feel that the airwing should be largely FAA not RAAF, it's a very specialised world at sea.

Going to sea in a small sailing boat can be achieved by any idiot, coming back regularly and safely requires specialist knowledge, imagine how much more difficult landing on a carrier is [even with modern aids], its a specialists role. It's [FAA] role should be recognised as self evident IMO.

The meaning of the airwing being largely FAA, should also be self evident, though to forestall pedantism...army rotors and RAAF/Allied pilots/crew etc would need to be cross trained/decked or worked up for deployments and constitute for a set time part of the embarked airwing.
Whether the British carrier is physically suited to the "Australia Station", i don't know and would leave that for others with more specialist knowledge to inform us.

Nonetheless I feel qualified enough to comment on and support the high level of political, strategic and tactical advantage that only a full sized conventional CV would bring to Australia, as opposed to even 2 or 3 tiny tots [limited to using only one fast-jet which isn't in service yet and cross-decking only with others so equipped].

The expenditure for a CV may seem large and unfortunately the returns from it would largely be intangible [invisible in dollar terms] to the taxpayer, yet in terms of National prestige, respect, capability, influence and flexibility IMO it would be a very sound investment. Wisely used it could pay for itself the first time it prevents, or helps prevent, an awkward scene from going hot and requiring further ADF or Allied military intervention.

Remember always, budget constraints for a sector are a willful construction, often not indicating a lack of National resources and that political construction always dictates what limits the ADF has to operate within.

I can't see Canberra providing the funding but thankfully a 'hypothetical' like this gives one the chance to vent a little at the ineptitude therein.:flame:
Enough from me,
Cheers,
Mac

 

[SASWanabe]

can a bare bones queen elizabeth (as in utilizing it as least a possible and mainly to keep raaf pilots proficient on it,having it there when it was urgently needed.) be aquired if and when available .
Would it be workable flying raaf jets off?
If put up for sale is this THE opportunity of a life time for the ran to be able to get a carrier of this size?...and again only utilized for pilot proficency and seaman proficency plus there to be used when urgenlty needed.

whats the point of just letting it sit and rust? if we were going to buy it we'd use it as much as possible to get as much bang for our buck as possible (like we do with most ships) i doubt F-35A can fly and land safely on a carrier the size of QE, if jets were to be based on RAN ships ods are they would be FAA operated but RAAF maintained.

I see way more positives than negatives when it comes to operating a full sized CATOBAR carrier, not only the prestige of actualy having a carrier and showing it off (Rimpac mainly). but in our reigon having a carrier nearby could stop and make a power think before they do something "Stupid". ie what if we had one off the coast leading upto fijian coup? (any of the Fijian coups for that matter)

 

[Seaforth]

Yep more subs agreed....

Hmmm...

Would a carrier like a QE class perhaps be more versatile and useful than the "projected" increase in the number of subs from 6 to 12? I reckon a carrier would cost less / no more than 6 extra subs if the fixed wing air group is provided by in-plan RAAF F-35 squadrons (though of course F35C would be needed).

A carrier wouldn't have the crewing problem that the sub force has either - where submariners are difficult to recruit and more expensive to retain.

While naval vessels obviously need to be able to fight a war, in practical terms they need to be able to generate some kind of benefit during peacetime too, which is after all most of the time. 6 subs and one QE carrier would provide a lot more options and benefits than 12 subs and no carrier.

Also, if a CATOBAR QE carrier was acquired, would the RAAF Super Hornets be able to operate relatively easily or would they need extensive mods?? I don't know how similar they are to the USN SH's. That would help de-risk the opportunity by making it much less dependent on a type not yet in operation, which has been a major thorn in the flesh for the Royal Navy.

My apologies if this has already been discussed somewhere else / before.. and I know that the 6 extra subs are nowhere near a done deal either

 

[SASWanabe]

the carrier could probably be bought by only sacrificing 2 subs. collins cost 1b each(not sure if thats unit cost or program cost) 36bn for 12 subs puts these at 3 bn a pop.

what else we would have to do depends both on cost of F35A+C

 

[Seaforth]

the carrier could probably be bought by only sacrificing 2 subs. collins cost 1b each(not sure if thats unit cost or program cost) 36bn for 12 subs puts these at 3 bn a pop.

what else we would have to do depends both on cost of F35A+C

Well I think I'd rather have 6 new subs and a new carrier than 12 new subs...

 

[SASWanabe]

Well I think I'd rather have 6 new subs and a new carrier than 12 new subs...

what i was trying to say was you could have a new carrier and 10 new subs... if the unit cost of F35A goes past 110m each (thats a big if) you could trade 15 F35A for 30 F18 E/F (still second most capable carrier A/C). or a mix of F35C and F18 E/F.

 

[OpinionNoted]

My apologies if this has already been discussed somewhere else / before.. and I know that the 6 extra subs are nowhere near a done deal either

lol sure sure but im just asking about the feasability of a hypothetical on a hypothetical thread.

 

[t68]

whats the point of just letting it sit and rust? if we were going to buy it we'd use it as much as possible to get as much bang for our buck as possible (like we do with most ships) i doubt F-35A can fly and land safely on a carrier the size of QE, if jets were to be based on RAN ships ods are they would be FAA operated but RAAF maintained.

I see way more positives than negatives when it comes to operating a full sized CATOBAR carrier, not only the prestige of actualy having a carrier and showing it off (Rimpac mainly). but in our reigon having a carrier nearby could stop and make a power think before they do something "Stupid". ie what if we had one off the coast leading upto fijian coup? (any of the Fijian coups for that matter)

Future aircraft aboard Queen Elizabeth will be slightly larger and heavier than F35A; F35C model of the variant will be the main stay for the future if the RN keep her and not forced to sell both.
If by chance some unknown force prevails on the RAN and she gets a Queen Elizabeth class we are all ready half way there for a return for the FAA, F18E/F Super Hornets are carrier capable already no change’s between ours and the USN Super Hornets. An additional buy of Hornets and in the future maybe some F35C for a total of 36 fast jest and hopefully E2D Hawkeye AWACS and support helicopters.AWACS aircraft will also have the capability of in-flight refuelling from the Super hornets for longer time on station if needed.

F-35A Joint Strike Fighter
F-35C Joint Strike Fighter
http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/e2dhawkeye/assets/E2_Hawkeye_Book.pdf