A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[ngatimozart]

I can assure you that there is little if any logic in my post, I was just taking the lead from gf's earlier comments. Even if the Typhoon was the only option for the US they would still find a way to avoid buying it, too much national pride at stake.

That said, considering the strike orientation of the F-35, the limited numbers of F-22 in service, the aging of legacy platforms (F-15, F-16) and the comparatively large numbers of Typhoons entering service around the world, the USAF and USN could well find themselves complemented by allied Typhoons.

The Typhoon is a very good replacement for the likes of the F-15, F-16, F-18, etc a gap that has not yet been filled in the US.

The US is pinning a lot on one platform and that can be a weakness because if it all turns to custard there is no back up. If you look at all their F/A platforms since WWII there has been always at least 2 different aircraft in each category across the services (USAF, USN, USMC) or even within say the USAF. Now all 3 are going to be using the 1 aircraft with 2 maybe 3 variants within that type. To me that is putting all your eggs in the one basket. What happens when all the legacy platforms including the F22 are gone?

To keep this loosely linked to this thread would the RAN just stick with F35 or go with Shornets?

 

[Bonza]

I can assure you that there is little if any logic in my post, I was just taking the lead from gf's earlier comments. Even if the Typhoon was the only option for the US they would still find a way to avoid buying it, too much national pride at stake.

That said, considering the strike orientation of the F-35, the limited numbers of F-22 in service, the aging of legacy platforms (F-15, F-16) and the comparatively large numbers of Typhoons entering service around the world, the USAF and USN could well find themselves complemented by allied Typhoons.

The Typhoon is a very good replacement for the likes of the F-15, F-16, F-18, etc a gap that has not yet been filled in the US.

Nothing against the Typhoon, but I don't see what it provides that a Super Hornet or current generation F-15 (such as the K or SG) couldn't, outside of some performance advantage which I don't think would be sufficient to justify costs. But then I'm not entirely familiar with the Typhoon's systems so I could be wrong, apologies if that's the case.

Can I ask what it is about the F-35's orientation that will give it limitations outside of the strike role? It's just that going by what I've read, there's been an emphasis that it's a multi-role platform and will be quite at home in air superiority functions. I would have thought the performance advantages the Typhoon has would be largely negated through the LO and SA characteristics of the F-35 in this role.

Logic or otherwise, cheers for the responses, they're appreciated.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

considering the strike orientation of the F-35

That’s a canard. The F-35 is designed for A2A and will better at it than any other plane (‘cept the F-22). Typhoons will need escorting from F-35s to survive in some airspaces.

 

[Volkodav]

That’s a canard. The F-35 is designed for A2A and will better at it than any other plane (‘cept the F-22). Typhoons will need escorting from F-35s to survive in some airspaces.

Complementry, the F-35 carries external ordinance it loses much of its LO advantage, keep the F-35 clean and let the Typhoons carry the bombs, or in an A2A senario the Meteors. Run Rands hordes of PLAAF SU 35s senario with lots Typhoons backing up the F-35s and F-22s with lots and lots of Meteors, the F-35 and F-22 take out the critical targets, AEW and tankers etc while the Typhoons paste SU 35s from BVR using the tactical picture provided by the F-35s and F-22s.

To be honest it doesn't need to be Typhoon and could just as easily be F-15/16/18, or even Gripen or dare I say it Rafael. the thing is there is a place for a mix of capabilities, some times you need more missile or bombs than a limited number of LO types can carry.

As lip service to the actual thread topic how does a RAN QE airgroup of 12 F-35C and 24 Gripen NG sound?

 

[Kirkzzy]

As lip service to the actual thread topic how does a RAN QE airgroup of 12 F-35C and 24 Gripen NG sound?

I'd rather just have 12 F-35C to 24 Shornets that can provide a much greater capability than the Gripen NG. Although tbh I would rather have additional F-35A then F-35C. A carrier could just do with 12 more Shornets.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'd rather just have 12 F-35C to 24 Shornets that can provide a much greater capability than the Gripen NG. Although tbh I would rather have additional F-35A then F-35C. A carrier could just do with 12 more Shornets.

I was under impression that F35 was replacement for Shornets as well. So if this was case wouldn't it be logical to stick to 1 strike type on carrier especially as you don't have a lot of space and you are carrying helos, AEW, & replenishment birds as well (if you following USN model)

 

[SASWanabe]

I was under impression that F35 was replacement for Shornets as well. So if this was case wouldn't it be logical to stick to 1 strike type on carrier especially as you don't have a lot of space and you are carrying helos, AEW, & replenishment birds as well (if you following USN model)

and what exactly are the replenishment birds?

 

[ngatimozart]

and what exactly are the replenishment birds?

The USN use the Grumman C-2 Greyhound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as a Carrier On Board delivery aircraft. It is used for the transport of personnel, mail & supplies on & off board USN carriers.

 

[SASWanabe]

The USN use the Grumman C-2 Greyhound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as a Carrier On Board delivery aircraft. It is used for the transport of personnel, mail & supplies on & off board USN carriers.

ahh i thought you were refering to refuelers i.e buddy store Shornets.

im not aware if the F-35 can buddy store or not, would kinda defeat the purpose of LO if they could

 

[harryriedl]

ahh i thought you were refering to refuelers i.e buddy store Shornets.

im not aware if the F-35 can buddy store or not, would kinda defeat the purpose of LO if they could

Buddy pack would be useful as it would extend the strike range, a decent sized air wing makes this method make sense.

Also no reason why C-2 could take on tanker duties are their (apart from speed concerns and few airframes)

 

[SASWanabe]

Buddy pack would be useful as it would extend the strike range, a decent sized air wing makes this method make sense.

Also no reason why C-2 could take on tanker duties are their (apart from speed concerns and few airframes)

the F-35C carries ~19,600lb of internal fuel the C-2 greyhounds useful load is ~20,600lb, 30,000lb at max takeoff wait.


dont think the C-2 would be very effective refueling 4 or 5 at a time

 

[swerve]

It could provide range-extending top-ups after take-off, & pick up aircraft coming back short of fuel & needing a safety reserve for go-rounds. Whether it's worth having aboard for that is something I don't think I'm qualified to judge.

 

[gf0012-aust]

the F-35C carries ~19,600lb of internal fuel the C-2 greyhounds useful load is ~20,600lb, 30,000lb at max takeoff wait.


dont think the C-2 would be very effective refueling 4 or 5 at a time

Its a better asset to use. It provides depth and loiter, and is far more cost effective.

The issue is where you put the AAR. You could put 3-4 greyhounds up and provide better support than putting up a couple of buddy F-35's - far more cost effective and greater flexibility.

"of type" buddy refueling is limited

its a bandaid

 

[gf0012-aust]

just in case there is some confusion re my discussion on the typhoon..

I'm not suggesting that the typhoon is the answer in a force mix, my theoretical was based around the premise that if the US went down a path of building Typhoons for carrier work then there would be benefit as they would pick up the development and integration costs.

eg, similar to their development of the Hawk/Goshawk (T45?? LICF)

the reality is that they don't need the Typhoon anyway, as they have SHornet.

if the Shornet didn't exist then the hypotheticals kick in.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Complementry, the F-35 carries external ordinance it loses much of its LO advantage

It can carry a very significant bomb load internally. The need for external bomb carriage is in a hand full of contemporary scenarios. These include stand off weapons carriage (JASSM, etc) where the ordnance is dropped outside a defended area and carpet bombing of constrained manoeuvre terrain to destroy mines (beach assault).

keep the F-35 clean and let the Typhoons carry the bombs, or in an A2A senario the Meteors.

So the Typhoons are then vulnerable to enemy defences? In none of these scenarios does having a Typoon in place of a F-35 make any positive contribution. Sure it’s a solution if you have Typhoons and have to deploy them but an F-35 force would be much better.

Run Rands hordes of PLAAF SU 35s senario with lots Typhoons backing up the F-35s and F-22s with lots and lots of Meteors, the F-35 and F-22 take out the critical targets, AEW and tankers etc while the Typhoons paste SU 35s from BVR using the tactical picture provided by the F-35s and F-22s.

Well its not RAND’s scenario as they made patently clear plus it’s a total bullshit scenario. Since a Typhoon costs more than a F-35 I don’t see how they can bulk out your force. Since outnumbered F-35s can strike and disengage to strike again in the real world – as opposed to the APA style chess board battlespace – being strongly outnumbered is not such a bad deal when you have significant quality advantages. Since you are in a LO aircraft you can always strike their airfields leaving their large number of aircraft impotent (Op Focus: 1967).

To be honest it doesn't need to be Typhoon and could just as easily be F-15/16/18, or even Gripen or dare I say it Rafael. the thing is there is a place for a mix of capabilities, some times you need more missile or bombs than a limited number of LO types can carry.

Well that’s nothing new. But seriously these older aircraft bring NOTHING to the table that the 5G fighters don’t.

As lip service to the actual thread topic how does a RAN QE airgroup of 12 F-35C and 24 Gripen NG sound?

Like an absolute nightmare. Its not the 1950s anymore aircraft cost is a lot more than just flyaway. By mixing your air wing you create lots of additional costs via duplication and complexity. A 24 F-35 air wing would be much better than a 12 F-35 plus 24 Gripen. Besides for the RAN to acquire a single (or pair) CTOL carrier capability would be insane compared to STOVL. The sort of thing that would only happen due to political interference (as in the RN).

 

[aussienscale]

I read some time ago of the possibility of a Pod Mounted EW Module for the F35 ? Is this still a possibility ? and does anyone know if this is still being looked at ?
It would negate the need for further airframes in a carrier scenario, or in this hypothetical no need for growlers ?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Bulk response to generic carrier ignorance:

I'd rather just have 12 F-35C to 24 Shornets that can provide a much greater capability than the Gripen NG. Although tbh I would rather have additional F-35A then F-35C. A carrier could just do with 12 more Shornets.

Well actually a Block II Super Hornet is rated at around 2/3s the combat power of an F-35. So 24 Block II Super Hornets equals 16 F-35s. For a CTOL carrier the nature of carrier operations is such that you need at least 24 fighters. Because of cyclic operations you can’t have more than half in the air so if you have less than 24 you won’t be able to put a full squadron (12) in the air for strike packages.

I was under impression that F35 was replacement for Shornets as well. So if this was case wouldn't it be logical to stick to 1 strike type on carrier especially as you don't have a lot of space and you are carrying helos, AEW, & replenishment birds as well (if you following USN model)

The USN will run a 50-50 mix of F-35Cs and Super Hornets until a new aircraft comes along.

im not aware if the F-35 can buddy store or not, would kinda defeat the purpose of LO if they could

It has nothing to do with LO. The USN carrier will have more than enough Super Hornets for the tanker role so doesn’t need F-35Cs for it. Anyway after Super Hornet they are looking at X-47Bs for the tanker role because of the nature of this operation on a carrier makes them very well suited.

Buddy pack would be useful as it would extend the strike range, a decent sized air wing makes this method make sense.

Also no reason why C-2 could take on tanker duties are their (apart from speed concerns and few airframes)

The USN does NOT use tanking to extend strike range at least not since it retired its last strategic nuclear bombers in the 1960s. Tanking on a carrier is all about safe recovery of aircraft. The tankers are used in the landing pattern to provide a safe recovery fuel margin.

The C-2 can NOT and will NOT ever be used as a tanker by the USN because it is completely unsuited to the role. It can’t get to an aircraft in trouble and it can’t provide the same level of recovery security for itself in pitching deck scenarios.

 

[Sea Toby]

Swerve posted earlier...To recap: $200 mn Australian is worth £125 mn now. That's almost as much as TWO Bay class built by BAe cost new. If the UK could sell Largs Bay for £62.5mn (i.e. close to what the BAe ships cost new), the Treasury would be very happy indeed, & would probably be content to settle for less. £62.5mn is AUD100 mn.

There is no reason to consider past AUD/GBP rates. They're not significant to either party....

From this new report it appears the Largs Bay is going to cost the Aussies in the neighborhood of AU$300 million, or 188 million pounds....

You are far off the mark suggesting a fire sale price of AU$100 million...

Australian chiefs may save warship Largs Bay - Chronicle News - News - ChronicleLive

Not only is she displace twice as much as the Canterbury, she has three times as many lane meters for her vehicle deck...

Maybe past currency conversion rates don't matter much, but needing the ship to fill a capability gap more than wanting her does... :daz

 

[swerve]

Who's suggesting a fire sale price? What I've suggested is that we're unlikely to sell her for much more than what a new-build ship cost.

There is no credible evidence for a price of AUD300 million, or anything remotely near it. You've quoted a British local newspaper quoting an Australian press story which has already been discussed here. Finding it repeated in another paper, in this case a local rag with no specialist or specific knowledge, does not increase its credibility.

Unsourced newspaper reports are worthless. They could be based on someone's guess at what a new-build ship to RAN specs might cost, the budgeted amount for a new-build ship - who knows

 

[SASWanabe]

The Australian government is also considering moves to buy other decommissioned warships from the UK, including the 22,000 tonne HMS Ark Royal. After 25 years of service, the Wallsend-built Invincible Class aircraft carrier failed to survive the government’s spending review.

that should show how credible this article is... Largs Bay is the only vessel i could even imagine the navy wanting letalone a rustbucket aircraft carrier, then again stranger things have happened.