OpinionNoted
Banned Member
links not working.
A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?
- Thread starter t68
- Start date
- Status
JoeMcFriday
New Member
Sorry about that, if this one doesn't work I can only suggest going to the other aircraft carrier thread and download it from there. That one is working.
Cheers,
Mac
http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholar...08Jun_Cruz.pdf
No success.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/role-aircraft-carriers-conflicts-10867-2/
Last edited:
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
ok i see it,thanks.
I do not see the point in a light carrier. 10 - 15 aircraft seem to offer little capability benefit at significant cost and would be ineffective against anyone except nations without fast jets themselves (or obsolete platforms and weapon systems).
If Australia is to identify a carrier requirement, I would suggest a minimum requirement of 3 QEs and 150 F35s. I suggest this as the only requirements I can think of to justify the cost are China, India, the US and expeditionary actions in far off places to support our allies.
I still think this thread is to narrow as Australia requires a number of cabaiblies or capabilty enhancements before a fleet of carrier battle groups could be considered.
If Australia is to identify a carrier requirement, I would suggest a minimum requirement of 3 QEs and 150 F35s. I suggest this as the only requirements I can think of to justify the cost are China, India, the US and expeditionary actions in far off places to support our allies.
I still think this thread is to narrow as Australia requires a number of cabaiblies or capabilty enhancements before a fleet of carrier battle groups could be considered.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Each F-35B can carry either 8 SDBs, 2 NSMs or 2 x 1000lb bombs internally. It took an average of 1-2 x 500 lb bombs to sink a frigate during the falklands.
Most navies in this region don't have area AAW. Those who do, mostly don't have SAMs with sufficient range to reach 110km of the SDB (which outrange the aster or the HQ-9) or the even longer NSMs which means the F-35B will probably be able to strike and restrike with impunity esp if enemy fleet got no air cover. And even if they have something like the aegis radar, the F-35B will still likely be able to penetrate undetected to within strike range.
Having said that, it could be a moot point if US cancels the F-35B in 2 years.
How many missiles does it actually take to sink a ship?
Each F-35B can carry either 8 SDBs, 2 NSMs or 2 x 1000lb bombs internally. It took an average of 1-2 x 500 lb bombs to sink a frigate during the falklands.
Most navies in this region don't have area AAW. Those who do, mostly don't have SAMs with sufficient range to reach 110km of the SDB (which outrange the aster or the HQ-9) or the even longer NSMs which means the F-35B will probably be able to strike and restrike with impunity esp if enemy fleet got no air cover. And even if they have something like the aegis radar, the F-35B will still likely be able to penetrate undetected to within strike range.
Having said that, it could be a moot point if US cancels the F-35B in 2 years.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Two points of correction here, both relating to SDB usage. While the SDB/GBU-39 does have a wing kit available which can provide a standoff glide range of 60 n miles, the bomb itself is not at present particularly useful in an anti-shipping role. The SDB has an INS/GPS navigation system, which allows strikes against stationary targets. The SDB II/GBU-40 is expected to have a capability of striking moving targets, but at present a ship underway would only be hit by a SDB released at standoff ranges with a great deal of luck. Additionally, the SDB only has a 50 lb. /22.6 kg warhead, while that would be plenty to damage a vessel, and even sink some vesself if it struck in a critical area or if they were small. Between these two shortcomings, there are better weapons available to aircraft tasked with anti-shipping roles.
-Cheers
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
As stated, the 60+nm ranged GPS guided SDB 1 can still strike stationary ships and the 40+nm ranged SDB 2 will have moving target capability. A sea skua has a ~60lb warhead with a 25km range. The hellfire has half the warhead size. Equally importantly, I would think the SDB's penetration is more likely to achieve a critical hit eg fuel tanks.
Its could be even less of a concern for the RAAF which has developed the wingkit for the 500 lb JDAM ie JDAM-ER. Assuming that can fit into an internal bay, then that's another cheap standoff weapon.
If I'm not wrong, Australia is also co-funding the Kongsberg JSM (or at least the feasibility studies) which could demonstrate its intent to purchase some. How many F-35Bs is required to deliver the 240km anti-ship missile?
Still begs the question, how much firepower is actually needed to sink the kinds of fleets that would need hordes of F-35Cs rather than a small complement of F-35Bs?
If one considers the Indonesia navy. Most of their combat vessels are smaller than even the leander class frigates in the Falklands. Many, like the Parchims, are below 1000 tons. If one considers countries like China, then Australia is not going to fight China all by itself. And even if China, the Varyyag won't be carrying that many Suks either.
Noted and agreed that INS/GPS will be far less accurate against moving targets at range. I'm not so sure SDB will remain as 1 & 2 due to the potential for dual sensor SDBs similar to Boeing's GBU-54s. Boeing may have lost the US order for SDBs but its still a substantial FMS market.
As stated, the 60+nm ranged GPS guided SDB 1 can still strike stationary ships and the 40+nm ranged SDB 2 will have moving target capability. A sea skua has a ~60lb warhead with a 25km range. The hellfire has half the warhead size. Equally importantly, I would think the SDB's penetration is more likely to achieve a critical hit eg fuel tanks.
Its could be even less of a concern for the RAAF which has developed the wingkit for the 500 lb JDAM ie JDAM-ER. Assuming that can fit into an internal bay, then that's another cheap standoff weapon.
If I'm not wrong, Australia is also co-funding the Kongsberg JSM (or at least the feasibility studies) which could demonstrate its intent to purchase some. How many F-35Bs is required to deliver the 240km anti-ship missile?
Still begs the question, how much firepower is actually needed to sink the kinds of fleets that would need hordes of F-35Cs rather than a small complement of F-35Bs?
If one considers the Indonesia navy. Most of their combat vessels are smaller than even the leander class frigates in the Falklands. Many, like the Parchims, are below 1000 tons. If one considers countries like China, then Australia is not going to fight China all by itself. And even if China, the Varyyag won't be carrying that many Suks either.
But how many do we need F-35B's that we can't deliver a harpoon, or tlam, or Sm2/6 to? Any of those is going to be more viable than a 500lb with a glide kit (or less able stuff) in actually hitting a even lightly defended moving target as they are going to be flying fairly predictable paths, not seaskimming and comming at all sorts of angles and directions at far greater speeds.
I could see them being useful against slow moving predictable and light/unprotected things like fleet oilers, supply or small stuff like patrol and light armed corvettes. But arent the more useful for ground targets? Perhaps in saturation they would be more effective. If you could carry 8 x 500lb with glide, then with 2 or 3 aircraft you could thicken the air against more sophisticated targets. 1 x 500lb would proberly mission kill most of the stuff out there if it got through.
But regardless if you going to spend 5 or 10 billion on a decent airwing, 1 or 2 billion on each new escort (and we would need 1-3 more AWD) then spending 5 billion instead of 2 billion on a carrier isn't going to be much concern if it makes you much more capable and able to buy cheaper planes.
Don't worry about how many F35's at the moment, I bet the Federal Government and Qld Government wish we still had a carrier capability ? LHD's are a few years too late
Are you serious ?? Because if you are don't even bother to respond
Obviously never heard of a place called the Falkland Islands...
Operation Frequent Wind II...
I'm not sure how a carrier would be more useful for evacuation operations than simply staging helicopters out of Oakey/Archerfield/Amberly/Brisbane Airport?
It was a joke… I thought I could make it nice and oblique… Most of the people onboard flights in Op Frequent Wind were the leadership of the fallen RVN regime. Just like in Saigon some Government leaders in Brisbane may wish they have a nearby carrier they can flee to by helicopter from their rooftops to avoid repercussions from the public…
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
A single standard SAM may actually cost 100 JDAMs. If JDAMs require an a/c to get close, then a stealth a/c like the F-35 is possibly the best candidate compared to an F-18. One can more than afford 200 JDAM/SDBs to take out an aegis equipped with 100 standards if an aircraft can get close enough. And if anyone can, the F-35 can.
If I replace JDAM with a multi-million harp or TLAM, the above wouldn't apply, would it?
I see a CVL as an escort vessel rather than for a CBG. In the case of the canberras, certainly even if the LHDs could base F-35Bs eg with an extended flight deck, the amount of aviation fuel, munitions etc would limit its utility severely as a strike CV. However, there are perhaps arguable grounds to support a limited sustained defensive air cover which AAW destroyers would not be able to provide.
As an example, air armed CVLs would have been useful to escort tankers in the Iranian blockade in the 80s. You can't replace such roles with land-based air esp when foreign basing is not guaranteed.
gf has consistently pointed out that RAN has carefully considered all of their requirements and a carrier based requirement does not factor as a "must-have" in RAN planning. Agree esp when such incidents don't happen frequently and there are alternatives to take into account. I don't actually see a need for QE sized CVs in RAN service.
imho, the Australians appear to be increasingly conservative in major project procurement esp when cost increases, overruns and deadline risks appear to be increasing. Good move esp when the F-35B's future looks increasingly shaky. I can probably make a reasonable argument why F-35Bs are cost-effective in a limited role vis a vis TLAMs and Harps but in a context where the F-35B may be cancelled, its irrelevant as no one can argue against the project risks associated with the F-35B. The problems have actually doomed F-35B FMS until the a/c can demonstrate a few years of cost-effective, risk-free operations. That's practically only in the next decade. No way to argue against the bean counters in this case.
Would you waste a multi-million dollar standard SAM or a $500k Sea RAM on a $50k JDAM or $70k SDB? Can a navy actually afford those odds if one says yes? How effective is a phalanx actually at stopping a 500lb-er esp with the kinetic energy that its travelling at?
A single standard SAM may actually cost 100 JDAMs. If JDAMs require an a/c to get close, then a stealth a/c like the F-35 is possibly the best candidate compared to an F-18. One can more than afford 200 JDAM/SDBs to take out an aegis equipped with 100 standards if an aircraft can get close enough. And if anyone can, the F-35 can.
If I replace JDAM with a multi-million harp or TLAM, the above wouldn't apply, would it?
Agreed. I think when one considers the Australian strategy, its not really a question of strike but a question of defence. In the strike role, Australia will probably rely on foreign basing not only to base its F-35As but also to provide sufficient logistical support for an adequate expeditionary role. In such a case, there is no need for a CV.
I see a CVL as an escort vessel rather than for a CBG. In the case of the canberras, certainly even if the LHDs could base F-35Bs eg with an extended flight deck, the amount of aviation fuel, munitions etc would limit its utility severely as a strike CV. However, there are perhaps arguable grounds to support a limited sustained defensive air cover which AAW destroyers would not be able to provide.
As an example, air armed CVLs would have been useful to escort tankers in the Iranian blockade in the 80s. You can't replace such roles with land-based air esp when foreign basing is not guaranteed.
gf has consistently pointed out that RAN has carefully considered all of their requirements and a carrier based requirement does not factor as a "must-have" in RAN planning. Agree esp when such incidents don't happen frequently and there are alternatives to take into account. I don't actually see a need for QE sized CVs in RAN service.
imho, the Australians appear to be increasingly conservative in major project procurement esp when cost increases, overruns and deadline risks appear to be increasing. Good move esp when the F-35B's future looks increasingly shaky. I can probably make a reasonable argument why F-35Bs are cost-effective in a limited role vis a vis TLAMs and Harps but in a context where the F-35B may be cancelled, its irrelevant as no one can argue against the project risks associated with the F-35B. The problems have actually doomed F-35B FMS until the a/c can demonstrate a few years of cost-effective, risk-free operations. That's practically only in the next decade. No way to argue against the bean counters in this case.
This is pretty simple, we can go with two options.
1) Equip each of the two LHDs with 6 F35Bs for about 3 billion dollars (rough estimate for 12 aircraft, counting F35Bs higher cost compared to other JSF variants). This allows us to have one "mini" carrier operational pretty much all year round. Having both LHDs under maintenance is unlikely but possible. This option allows us to take out a variety of vessels, pretty sure a previous post said something like you only need one F35 with one - two 500lb bombs to take out a your average frigate, and the F35B can internally carry two 1000lb bombs. A third LHD is an option and would allow us to have around the clock 24/7 carrier capabilities, yet the cost of more F35Bs taken out of the original order (presuming) is probably too high as is another LHD. Additionally if possible (I was trying to be realistic originally) we could have three LHDs each with 8 F35Bs but I don't know if it has the space or if this would cut too much out of its other capabilities.
2) Pretty simple but can't see how we would need this if we were invading a small island when CAS is required and the LHD can provide anyway. This option is preferabal if we are getting really serious about spending more money on defence and have a surplus of manpower. And that is buying the QE2 and (NOT BUYING F35C which wastes even more money) equipping it with our current 24 SHs and upgrading 12 of those to the EA-18 Growler. We wouldn't need a full complement but if required we could just buy another 12 hornets or USE current legacy hornets! It is a pretty good cost saving measure to stick with the hornets as the USN uses anyway and is going to continue using for another 20-30 years.
Option 1 is probably the most cost effective option and is for when we are up against middle to low powers (if we are vsing high powers we will most likely have backing) It is effective as it provides CAS to ground personnel during amphibious assaults. While option 2 is for if their is a high chance of war with a major power like China, and used for high intensity conflicts. (honestly the cost would be too high and it lacks the manpower)
The good thing about Option 1 is that it is actually POSSIBLE! It requires no other massive purchase of any other LHD or aircraft carrier, it is just using what we currently have (planned). If the ships went through the necessary refits or redesigns (depending on when the decision is made to give it carrier capability) it gives us more than enough capability to provide ourselves and our allies CAS when needed.
1) Equip each of the two LHDs with 6 F35Bs for about 3 billion dollars (rough estimate for 12 aircraft, counting F35Bs higher cost compared to other JSF variants). This allows us to have one "mini" carrier operational pretty much all year round. Having both LHDs under maintenance is unlikely but possible. This option allows us to take out a variety of vessels, pretty sure a previous post said something like you only need one F35 with one - two 500lb bombs to take out a your average frigate, and the F35B can internally carry two 1000lb bombs. A third LHD is an option and would allow us to have around the clock 24/7 carrier capabilities, yet the cost of more F35Bs taken out of the original order (presuming) is probably too high as is another LHD. Additionally if possible (I was trying to be realistic originally) we could have three LHDs each with 8 F35Bs but I don't know if it has the space or if this would cut too much out of its other capabilities.
2) Pretty simple but can't see how we would need this if we were invading a small island when CAS is required and the LHD can provide anyway. This option is preferabal if we are getting really serious about spending more money on defence and have a surplus of manpower. And that is buying the QE2 and (NOT BUYING F35C which wastes even more money) equipping it with our current 24 SHs and upgrading 12 of those to the EA-18 Growler. We wouldn't need a full complement but if required we could just buy another 12 hornets or USE current legacy hornets! It is a pretty good cost saving measure to stick with the hornets as the USN uses anyway and is going to continue using for another 20-30 years.
Option 1 is probably the most cost effective option and is for when we are up against middle to low powers (if we are vsing high powers we will most likely have backing) It is effective as it provides CAS to ground personnel during amphibious assaults. While option 2 is for if their is a high chance of war with a major power like China, and used for high intensity conflicts. (honestly the cost would be too high and it lacks the manpower)
The good thing about Option 1 is that it is actually POSSIBLE! It requires no other massive purchase of any other LHD or aircraft carrier, it is just using what we currently have (planned). If the ships went through the necessary refits or redesigns (depending on when the decision is made to give it carrier capability) it gives us more than enough capability to provide ourselves and our allies CAS when needed.
So if we still had the capability/looking forward a few years to the LHD's that as a contingency we would not deploy them ?
- Status