A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[gf0012-aust]

All aircraft are resource intensive, the question is how much more intensive is it to place them on a ship verses than put them on a land base and what additional capacity does that give you if you do?

but its also about threat scenario and threat likelihood as well flexibility of response. don't get me wrong,. I'm all for response flexibility.

The other question is what other method would you used to protect your lines of communication that would be better, cheaper or safer?

again it gets back to scale and scope of that threat. sustained response requires different force effect. at some point, the nature of our own SLOCs would see others stepping up as coalition partners very very quickly, that doesn't mean that you abrogate responsibility etc... but its part of the vignette assessment when you establish what you're about to throw into the fire.

The Jeep Carrier concept with just one of the New Electric Catapults which is now coming on line making catapult launch far more practical for smaller hulls, could lunch and recover all of the big carrier’s type aircraft though the Jeep itself is far too small to be used as an operational base. But it would work just fine for launching an E-2D every 6 or eight hours.

true, but any flat top holding E2's or equiv has become an automatic preferred target - and that means you need proper fleet support as every man, dog, LR air striker and sub will be looking to chalk it up - you can't avoid cost and then the associated cost benefit analysis that must accompany it

I know that the problem of keeping your lines of communication open is not a sexy one in today’s imagination.

at a public perception level maybe - within the military? decidedly and unequivocably not. SLOCs for an island continent like australia are primary issues, 98% of our trade is by sea, we straddle critical delivery lines, we sit astride 2 large oceans where the neighbourhood could get testy quite quickly. one of the reasons for subs and LR PGM's having greater focus is because subs pound for pound are far more cost effective at causing a disproportionate shifting of an enemies military resources to find or avoid them. More than any other maritime asset, subs cause navies to stay in port, cause commercial shipping to remap their routes, cause naval fleets to call up other assets to protect and interdict etc.... They are one of the best manned INT assets available (as we've seen in the gulf). Out of sight, out of mind to the blissfully ignorant, but always lurking.

there's a break point when carriers are more viable, I'm just not convinced that in the scenarios that we do game out that a RAN flagged carrier would change our outcomes - at the elevated theatre level then we won't be fighting alone irrespective of what nationalism and idealism would prefer us to do.

 

[StingrayOZ]

What would hypothetical carrier be aimed at? Supporting amphibious missions in the region and regional strike capability, or sanitising airspace against chinese influence?

I understand the big carrier argument. And in theory there might be a big carrier for purchase (the CVF) or atleast favourable terms. If your going through the expense of a carrier you might as well get a capable one and the CVF is extremely capable.

Is it really worth pursuing a 40,000t carrier when you could just build another CVF?

 

[rip]

What would hypothetical carrier be aimed at? Supporting amphibious missions in the region and regional strike capability, or sanitising airspace against chinese influence?

I understand the big carrier argument. And in theory there might be a big carrier for purchase (the CVF) or atleast favourable terms. If your going through the expense of a carrier you might as well get a capable one and the CVF is extremely capable.

Is it really worth pursuing a 40,000t carrier when you could just build another CVF?

I totally agree that submarines are, dollar for dollar, more cost effective for controlling sea lanes especially at choke points. But submarines are sea denial weapons. You can deny a potential enemy their use of the sea but you cannot use them effectively to insure your own use of the sea. If that is acceptable, it depends then who needs to use the sea the most and or have other alternatives.

The Jeep carriers of WW II were only 10,000 tons displacement and carried ten to twelve aircraft. They did not have a high or fast turnabout rate for launching aircraft but they were not intended to fight it out with the big boys. The Jeep Carrier is not a first line battle ship but it could be very useful for many things.

I think you could put what you needed on a 8 to 10 thousand ton hull like HSV High-Speed Vessel and have a very effective ship for securing your lines of communication and other uses but unless enough of them were made to get the costs of design and development down, it would be too expensive as a one of a kind to contemplate.

Yes, you allies would come to your aide to keep yours and don’t forget their own lines of communication open but the last thing you would see is a full carrier battle group employed for that job because they would have far more important things to do and pity the poor merchantmen would mostly be on their own. Not a job I would want to have.

 

[Jaimito]

I have done some research in the flight deck dimensions, and calculated with more rigour for saying:

-30-34 mts long between fore Sea Ram and weapons lift. And 13-4 mts wide until the Sky jump. F35b is 11 mts wide and 15 mts long, so for 2 jet places for working on them, as you can put them a bit diagonally, or hang the back part of the jet out the limit of ship (just need 11 mts actually not the 15 mts long is F35b).

-46 mts from back of island (incl. some structure next to island in Jc1) to the back lift, so easy 3 jet points, which ocupe the 11 mts of width of the width of flight deck.

-the V22 Osprey, once landing in the 1st back spot it ocupes like 12 mts of width of the total width of flight deck, without counting the rotors which are very high. So if you are using an V22 you really can´t park the jets well in front of the V22 Osprey, as it is 12 mts (V22) + 11 (F35b) so only 8 mts left for handling jets there, F35b is 11 mts wide and 15.3 long.
Edit: if Osprey, then could use the 3 jet places in front of it, but access to that row would be forced to be throught the first of those 3 jet places, the closest to the island, so actually you could use them. Hence having 2 fore or/and 3 back jet places simult with Ospreys ops. incresing the total handling of jets with Ospreys ops.

The Us Marines use a lot the V22 Osprey, so it might land on the Canberras for exercises etc.
The Osprey folded is 5 mts wide and 17 long. The space next to the island along it, which is marked by a lane in the flight deck, for parking, is 46 mts long (leaving many mts for parking the lorries), so you can park there like 3 Ospreys folded of other helos (seriously). But a Seahawk is 20 mts long so only 2 there or 3.

Now the Osprey is 5.5 mts high a and the Chinook 5.8 mts and without the rotors fits in the hangar, so maybe the Osprey as well.

-
-The F35b is supposed to need a +160 mts., in trials the X35 took off in less than 150 mts, the 162 mts point of launching is like 20-3 mts from a med helo when parked in the 1st back spot. Have to use the 5ht spot probably.

-The width of the fligth deck, 31 or 32 mts, the island is 9 mts, the parking channel next to island 5 mts, so both 14 mts, the F35b 11 mts wide (if not overhanging any wing on the run), so 25 mts and then 6-7 mts left of width of road for moving the lorries (i don´t think helos) up and down (Nh90 is 4.6 wide incl. a tail stabilizer), simultanously to launching jets.

I keep the card on the hangar config. I´ll paste one image from the videos to count.. maybe.

Sorry for many numbers. But clarify my previous posts.

 

[Jaimito]

Attached hangar maps:

-F35b: 10.7 wide, 15.6 long.
-Av8 Harrier: 9.25 wide, 14.12 long.
-Difference: 1.45 wide, 1.48 long.

As you see in the picture with 20 Harriers, it has 13 in the vehicles garage, so for F35b we can expect 11 fit.
While in the hangar, as seen in the 20 Har. picture, low half (as seen the picture) of hangar can be loaded with 3 F35b´s, as there are 4 Harriers, and the up half of it with 6 Seahawks, instead of the 3 Harriers that are there in the picture, in that space in the other picture i attach can be seen that 6 helos. So you can either extract helo or jet (for this, 1st extract the 1st helo).

To end up with a nice config of 6 Asw/Aew... in hangar plus 2 or 3 Ospreys or more helos, in flight deck (alongside island). And 5 F35bs in flight deck and 14 in hangar.
So 19 F35b and 8-9 Seahawk or Nh90 or Osprey. One helo spot free. 5 jet parking places in flight deck for handling.

Edit: in this case handle the 19 F35b, in groups of 2, that give 20 min. per landing.
If you achieve to dispacth the group of 2 before the next inmediate 2 land (ie before 20 mins), then you keep in the air 17 jets with little peaks of 19. If you achive to dispatch after the next inmediate landing, ie 2nd "20 mins" then you keep in the air 15 jets with peaks of 17.

 

[Sea Toby]

Attached hangar maps:

-F35b: 10.7 wide, 15.6 long.
-Av8 Harrier: 9.25 wide, 14.12 long.
-Difference: 1.45 wide, 1.48 long.

As you see in the picture with 20 Harriers, it has 13 in the vehicles garage, so for F35b we can expect 11 fit.
While in the hangar, as seen in the 20 Har. picture, low half (as seen the picture) of hangar can be loaded with 3 F35b´s, as there are 4 Harriers, and the up half of it with 6 Seahawks, instead of the 3 Harriers that are there in the picture, in that space in the other picture i attach can be seen that 6 helos. So you can either extract helo or jet (for this, 1st extract the 1st helo).

To end up with a nice config of 6 Asw/Aew... in hangar plus 2 or 3 Ospreys or more helos, in flight deck (alongside island). And 5 F35bs in flight deck and 14 in hangar.
So 19 F35b and 8-9 Seahawk or Nh90 or Osprey. One helo spot free. 5 jet parking places in flight deck for handling.

Edit: in this case handle the 19 F35b, in groups of 2, that give 20 min. per landing.
If you achieve to dispacth the group of 2 before the next inmediate 2 land (ie before 20 mins), then you keep in the air 17 jets with little peaks of 19. If you achive to dispatch after the next inmediate landing, ie 2nd "20 mins" then you keep in the air 15 jets with peaks of 17.

I believe everyone would agree the F-22Bs can operate off a Canberra LHD, its another question whether they can be sustained for a lengthy period of time... Inform us your conclusions after researching the jet fuel and munitions bunkers say compared to an Invincible or Wasp... When you have this information in hand, I think you will agree a Canberra LHD will be a poor light carrier...

Maybe a Canberra LHD is suitable for flight training of takeoffs and landings, but surely not for any contested battle as a carrier... If you can't sustain combat air operations as a carrier, why bother?

 

[alexsa]

I believe everyone would agree the F-22Bs can operate off a Canberra LHD, ....

Typo I think........ I am sure you meant F35B

 

[Sea Toby]

Typo I think........ I am sure you meant F35B

Yep, big mistake... F-35Bs.... not F-22As. Sorry about that... When you have been reading for more than a hour about the F-22As, if you don't watch it you write it when discussing F-35Bs...

 

[Todjaeger]

Attached hangar maps:

Thank you for providing the images of the Canberra-class LHD hangar. Whether or not they are entirely accurate or not does not particularly matter, since the images included do serve to illustrate the point that I and others have been attempting to make to you, with little or no success to date.

In the first attached image, the one with what I presume are supposed to be F-35B silhouettes, such a packed arrangement within the hangar would possibly be acceptable if all the LHD was conducting a ferry mission. Basically just bringing the F-35B within range to allow them to take off and land either onto a vessel suitable to sustain air ops, or onto an airfield, in a manner similar to what the SS Atlantic Conveyor was used for during the 1982 Falklands Conflict prior to being struck by Exocet AShM and lost.

Such a configuration would not be particularly suitable to any sort of sustained air ops from a Canberra-class LHD, simply because the only way to maneuver the aircraft (particularly those furthest from the lifts) to either of the two lifts, a refueling or arming point, or a maintenance area, is by moving any/all aircrafts that are in the way. As shown in the image, there are no transit thats which would allow aircraft to be moved from one portion of the hangar to another (or onto the flight deck) with requiring other aircraft to be moved, unless the aircraft being moved was already the one closest to the area in question. The image does show a good arrangement to fix the maximum number of aircraft for the space, but not for allowing air ops.

That is the important difference, in order for air ops to be conducted, the aircraft need to be able to be armed, fueled and maintained while they are onboard the ship. In order to do that, there needs to be sufficient access to allow either the aircraft to transit within the hangar to where needed, or for the fuel/munitions/parts to be brought to the aircraft, without it interferring with the maintenance and operations of other aircraft.

-Cheers

 

[alexsa]

Yep, big mistake... F-35Bs.... not F-22As. Sorry about that... When you have been reading for more than a hour about the F-22As, if you don't watch it you write it when discussing F-35Bs...

Understand completely. With some of the post the eyes do glaze over. As an aside (and slighlty related to topic) I note the UK are still taking one of the LRIP F-35B's which is odd with decision to move to the F-35C for CVF. Perhaps they have plans downstream for the RAF.

 

[ThePuss]

Thank you for providing the images of the Canberra-class LHD hangar. Whether or not they are entirely accurate or not does not particularly matter, since the images included do serve to illustrate the point that I and others have been attempting to make to you, with little or no success to date.

In the first attached image, the one with what I presume are supposed to be F-35B silhouettes, such a packed arrangement within the hangar would possibly be acceptable if all the LHD was conducting a ferry mission. Basically just bringing the F-35B within range to allow them to take off and land either onto a vessel suitable to sustain air ops, or onto an airfield, in a manner similar to what the SS Atlantic Conveyor was used for during the 1982 Falklands Conflict prior to being struck by Exocet AShM and lost.

Such a configuration would not be particularly suitable to any sort of sustained air ops from a Canberra-class LHD, simply because the only way to maneuver the aircraft (particularly those furthest from the lifts) to either of the two lifts, a refueling or arming point, or a maintenance area, is by moving any/all aircrafts that are in the way. As shown in the image, there are no transit thats which would allow aircraft to be moved from one portion of the hangar to another (or onto the flight deck) with requiring other aircraft to be moved, unless the aircraft being moved was already the one closest to the area in question. The image does show a good arrangement to fix the maximum number of aircraft for the space, but not for allowing air ops.

That is the important difference, in order for air ops to be conducted, the aircraft need to be able to be armed, fueled and maintained while they are onboard the ship. In order to do that, there needs to be sufficient access to allow either the aircraft to transit within the hangar to where needed, or for the fuel/munitions/parts to be brought to the aircraft, without it interferring with the maintenance and operations of other aircraft.

-Cheers

The images of the attached thumbs are most definitely incorrect. I have seen the plans and they are not what is posted by Jaimito. I believe the thumbs are of the Príncipe de Asturias.

If you interested in interior hanger photos of the Juan Carlos I (and various other interesting hidey-holes) you can find them here fotosdebarcos.com :: Ver tema - L-61 Juan Carlos I

Also on this page you can see the hull of the Canberra is almost complete.

fotosdebarcos.com :: Ver tema - HMAS Camberra

Slap a lick of paint on her and it will be time to get her bum wet!

 

[gf0012-aust]

The images of the attached thumbs are most definitely incorrect.=

There was a 2m line art/engineering layout out at R3 before the great exodus, it doesn't look like the internals at all..

 

[SASWanabe]

okay, we have established no carrier for the RAN what else could be aquired to mimic the capability but not the manning needs?

 

[RubiconNZ]

okay, we have established no carrier for the RAN what else could be aquired to mimic the capability but not the manning needs?

1. Purchasing Basing rights in the Pacific and Indian Ocean constructing Runways for squadron size deployments. That way we can sustain projected power over greater distances.

2. Get on board with the USAF future bomber aircraft program purchasing enough to allow a projected forward presence in areas of required power projection. This would also require a increase in tanking capability.


This would allow us to operate at a global or regional projection level, neither of which are really required in the ADF's current tasking IMO.

 

[JoeMcFriday]

okay, we have established no carrier for the RAN what else could be aquired to mimic the capability but not the manning needs?

That is what is called stating the obvious, isn't it?

It was obvious from the beginning that the AUSGOV is not going to fund a carrier and that the Navy wasn't asking for one, this therefore isn't a "should we buy a carrier?" question that invites such a conclusion.

Just a reminder that t68 opened this hypothetical with this question:-

"This all hypothetical and not what the RAN is doing i just trying to get ideas of what people idea might be if the RAN got back into the carrier game.
Which would be the best outcome for the RAN?"

Surely it would be appropriate for him to decide if that was the outcome he's satisfied with?

I think your new question's subject matter would be better aired in a new thread of your own, not in his. It's a good question, just in the wrong place IMO.
Mac

 

[Jaimito]

A good video on the F35b from Lockheed Martin.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD-J1KksHUQ&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - F-35B - Taking STOVL to a New Level[/nomedia]

 

[Jaimito]

I have made work with the printer, scale and the scissors to see exactly how many F35b, not Harrier, can carry, i attach the photo (in the photo there is the whole garage, but the blue zone is similar to the hangar, so actually you can see both the garage and hangar):
-hangar is 20x37.6 mts, taking into account 1mt of margin wrt the walls.
-garage is 20x65.3 mts, similar margin to walls.
-just can fit 5 F35b in the hangar.
- just can fit 10 F35b in the garage (1 between cargo lift and fore aircraft lift).

-so 15 F35b can fit in hangar and garage. Have been taken into account margins to the walls, extracting capability by both aircraft lifts and space for moving Uav´s from cargo lift to aircraft lift so that you can park Uav´s in heavy deck.
-8 more in flight deck F35b spots, to be configured with F35b´s and/or helo´s spot/s and/or helos.
-has been taken into account also that if you want to substitute 2 F35b´s from the hangar to put 3 Seahawks in the hangar, and to the the back lift you can extract F35b or helo independently.

-so every one has a preferred configuration for each mission (5 spots needed for runway (?)):

Max. jet carrier mission: 23 F35b, and 2 or 3 helos alongside island. Either use helos spot once launched 2 or 3 jets, or if not runway busy then use any spot in the runway.
EDIT: you can extreme it to put 2 jets in the 2 aircraft lifts (at least just for parking them,not fuel or arming them), cause you dont have to use the lift for helos. So up to 25 F35b. Remember theoretically it was proved to handle 28 at same time.

Edit: Balanced carrier mission: 1 permanent helo spot free. 20-21 F35b. 2-3 helo alongside island. Edit2: If can park 2 in lifts then 22-23 F35b. I like this one with the permanent helo spot free that gives flexibility for jets also.

+Balanced carrier mission (+asw and +aew): 1 permanent helo spot free (in the back or fore).
17-18 F35b and 3-6 helos, Ospreys.

Enhanced helo capabilty and carrier mission: 2 permanent helo spot free (in the back o also fore). 15-16 F35b and 6-9 helos, Ospreys.

+Enhanced helo capability and carrier mission: 3 permanent helo spot free (2 back, 1 fore). 9 F35b. 9-12 helos Ospreys. For 9 jets, 1jet landing each 20 minutes (180 mins jet endurance) or 2 each 40. Or 11 F35b and 6-9 helos Ospreys for 3 spot free.

Of course maths change if you can fuel and arm jets in the lifts in the flight deck (2 more handling places).

 

[Jaimito]

The images of the attached thumbs are most definitely incorrect. I have seen the plans and they are not what is posted by Jaimito. I believe the thumbs are of the Príncipe de Asturias.

The picture attached, with 20 harriers, is from the official Spanish Armada site for the Jc1. That size of hangar and garage was related to 10 Chinooks, and now they say 16 Chinooks. The picture shows the right dimensions of hangar and garage, or they still a bit bigger. I am talking of dimensions of hangar and garage, not meaning the layout round it in the other rooms.

 

[Jaimito]

That is the important difference, in order for air ops to be conducted, the aircraft need to be able to be armed, fueled and maintained while they are onboard the ship. In order to do that, there needs to be sufficient access to allow either the aircraft to transit within the hangar to where needed, or for the fuel/munitions/parts to be brought to the aircraft, without it interferring with the maintenance and operations of other aircraft.

-Cheers

Sorry i´ll remake it.

 

[Jaimito]

That is the important difference, in order for air ops to be conducted, the aircraft need to be able to be armed, fueled and maintained while they are onboard the ship. In order to do that, there needs to be sufficient access to allow either the aircraft to transit within the hangar to where needed, or for the fuel/munitions/parts to be brought to the aircraft, without it interferring with the maintenance and operations of other aircraft.

-Cheers

If any jet brokes either you move to the maintenance place (next to fore lift in garage), and there it doesn´t disturb any ops. Or you move it to the last place deep in the garage/hangar where it doesn´t disturb any operation. So if you have the maint. place ocuped, then move it to the last, extractign the ones that are before the last and substituting the last for the one broken.
When extracting you are either in air ops (so launch them), or no air ops (so park them in the runway).
And if a 3rd jet is broken and so on. I hope i explain well.
Once the broken it is in the last place, either can be fixed or maintained there, or if not when the maint place is avalaible move it there.

Fueling and arming are done in the flight deck probably, in the handling spots.

Edit: so what to do when you have to repair an helo that it has not its parking place in the hangar, but in the flight deck, alongside the island, then have to move it to poker "joker" place, the maint place next to the fore lift.
As example, 15 jets in hangar (1 in joker), 5 jets in flight deck, 1 jet parked in 1 lift, so 21 jets, 2-3 helos alongside the island, 1 permanent helo spot free (big, the 1st back). And if have to do repair to 1 helo, move it to joker, and the jet in the joker move it the spare place in 1 of the lifts.
Or the same but without a permanent helo spot, so 3 more jets, 24 jets and 2-3 helos.

Thanks.
Edit: if you have in your config 1 or 2 jet spots that are not used in the handling of jets, because you just use 4 (2+2), or 3, or 6(3+3) or 5(3+2), then those spots give you the flexib. of not needign to put a broken jet deep in the hangar (for not disturbing ops) because the maintenance spot is busy with other.