Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

Not that I don't like the Hobart class air warefare destroyers because I very much do,but I think that if you get bigger and less ships it is easier for your navy to be defeated.

What a tremendous argument to make in support of acquiring one single carrier then!

I know what we should do! We should buy one single carrier that weighs 200,000 tons! Is 500m long, 100m wide and 150m high big enough for you? We'd have only one ship, but it'd be the biggest of it's kind in the world!

We'd be defeated in seconds...

Honestly, have you put ANY thought into this at ALL?

If I was making the decisions I would keep the Adelaide class and upgrade them. But I have one exeption, I would get a light carrier and it would be equiped with the RAAF's hornets and super hornets. I would also get harriers or f-35b's for the LHD's.

If you were making decisions, our airmen and naval folk would be in terrible peril and would NOT get on that ship... Please show me the "light carrier" that can operate a Hornet or Super Hornet?

For them to take off and land on a ship, they need steam powered catapults and arresting gear. Please feel free to show us the light carrier that can do that...

As to Harriers or F-35b's, why not both? On a 200,000t Super Carrier you could easily accomodate both...

Of course it'd be sunk in seconds as you mentined earlier and our entire air force would be on the bottom of the ocean, but as it seems like such a sensible, well-thought through plan, sure why not? Let's give it a run eh?

We're only talking tens of billions to implement this. All we need to do is not pay our entire defence force for about 7-8 years and we could easily afford this. Are all you defence blokes on-board with this?

I am!

 

[Sea Toby]

What a tremendous argument to make in support of acquiring one single carrier then!

I know what we should do! We should buy one single carrier that weighs 200,000 tons! Is 500m long, 100m wide and 150m high big enough for you? We'd have only one ship, but it'd be the biggest of it's kind in the world!

We'd be defeated in seconds...

Honestly, have you put ANY thought into this at ALL?



If you were making decisions, our airmen and naval folk would be in terrible peril and would NOT get on that ship... Please show me the "light carrier" that can operate a Hornet or Super Hornet?

For them to take off and land on a ship, they need steam powered catapults and arresting gear. Please feel free to show us the light carrier that can do that...

As to Harriers or F-35b's, why not both? On a 200,000t Super Carrier you could easily accomodate both...

Of course it'd be sunk in seconds as you mentined earlier and our entire air force would be on the bottom of the ocean, but as it seems like such a sensible, well-thought through plan, sure why not? Let's give it a run eh?

We're only talking tens of billions to implement this. All we need to do is not pay our entire defence force for about 7-8 years and we could easily afford this. Are all you defence blokes on-board with this?

I am!

The lad doesn't understand carrier flight deck crews don't work 24//7 for much more than a day. They have to sleep. As it is they have their sleep interrupted with night watches.

The lad doesn't understand with the exception of the Falklands, opposed landings are conducted after air superiority is achieved and after significant shore/beach bombardment from the sea and air. The Falklands were a unique situation with the islands at the limits of Argie land based aircraft range. There wasn't much troop opposition at San Carlos, only a handful which ran when they saw the British landing force.

And I doubt whether the lad understands ships don't stay out to sea forever, they are rotated with other ships for a number of reasons. The crews wish to be with their families and friends for as long as possible fully aware they have to spend a third of the time at sea, and in a crisis longer.

If Australia does buy a light carrier, they will require more than one. It is an expensive proposition as the carriers will also be expensive to sustain as well, much less purchase.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Look at the situation the British had during the Falklands. With two light carriers loaded to the brim with Harriers, they barely provided CAP cover over the war zone, and there weren't many calls for close air support. And that CAP cover leaked, the Argies were able to bomb almost at will. Improper bomb fusing saved the day.

That is a totally false and/or ignorant statement. The British CAP was complete in terms of presence with over 30 CAP missions flown per day. The leakage in the CAP screen had a lot more to do with poor tactics and command interference. The Argentines were never able to bomb at will and far more of their missions turned around and fled for home than persecuted attacks. Further there was nothing wrong with the Argentine fusing but rather the bombing altitude of the pilots. If they had their fuses set for instant arming then they might have sunk a few more frigates but at the cost of 10s of their own aircraft being blown out of the sky by their own bombs. There wasn’t any close air support because the British weren’t set up for it. The artillery provided the offensive support to the troops in action. There were over a hundred strike missions flown however which is hardly a low rate of effort for the size of the force and the magnitude of the CAP requirement.

Yet, somehow some of you, the F-35B advocates, believe fewer aircraft on one LHD can do a better job? For every F-35B carried aboard a Canberra class LHD, its tons of army equipment which won't be.

I don't deny carrier based aircraft can't do the job, but I do question whether precious space on a Canberra class LHD for a few F-35Bs will do the job. A CAP to be fool proofed has to be conducted 24/7, that is where a second carrier enters the picture.

I know your track record is far from impressive in the brains department but haven’t you noticed the hundreds of posts in this very thread pointing out that you can’t fit F-35Bs onto a Canberra LHD without consuming its amphibious capability. As to the small AV-8B/F-35B allotments assigned to USMC MEUs there role is very different to providing CAPs. As to providing a 24/7 CAP a STOVL carrier tends to have the capability for 24 hour operations because of its lower flight deck crew demands. As long as you resource the squadron with enough pilots to keep up the rate of effort. Then of course carriers being ships they can move and will frequently sail in and out of threat zones. As in the Falklands where every night the fleet sailed further east and out of range of the Argentine threat. So they didn’t need to maintain a night CAP just a +5 deck alert.

I don't see a scenario where Australia would conduct an opposed landing without air superiority. Therefore, there isn't any compelling reasons for F-35B aircraft for the LHDs. Tiger helicopters will be more than sufficient to provide the troops close air support. Don't under estimate Tiger helicopters. There is a reason why they were bought.

The Tigers were not brought to provide close air support but to provide reconnaissance and escort to troop carrying helicopters. As to the air superiority argument if this was shared by the ADF then why are we buying SM6 and a cruise missile to shoot down threat aircraft over the horizon and destroy their airbases? Because the ADF knows that even in medium intensity scenarios there is little guarantee of air superiority not to mention the air supremacy needed to do away with layered air defences.

 

[hairyman]

Before this thread gets nastier, I would like to change the subject.
Looking at all the calls for a fourth AWD, remembering that we are getting three for about $8.8b. I had a brainwave. Why dont we approach our friends in the USN, and offer to buy a D1000 Zumwald (I think that is the name)., They are building three. 2 in one shipyard, 1 in another. They are large ships by RAN standards, and cost about $3b each, roughly the same as our AWD's. They are of about 12'000 tonnes, quite quick for their size and heavily armed compared to the Hobart class. But one of the main attractions for the RAN is the low crew size, 147. And delivery date would be slightly earlier than a 4th AWD. What do you think?fftopic

 

[icelord]

Before this thread gets nastier, I would like to change the subject.
Looking at all the calls for a fourth AWD, remembering that we are getting three for about $8.8b. I had a brainwave. Why dont we approach our friends in the USN, and offer to buy a D1000 Zumwald (I think that is the name)., They are building three. 2 in one shipyard, 1 in another. They are large ships by RAN standards, and cost about $3b each, roughly the same as our AWD's. They are of about 12'000 tonnes, quite quick for their size and heavily armed compared to the Hobart class. But one of the main attractions for the RAN is the low crew size, 147. And delivery date would be slightly earlier than a 4th AWD. What do you think?fftopic

wheres the right emoticon for this...:hitwall

besides the obvious of way too big, pointless etc, its $8.8 billion for parts, infrastructure to support and lead in training, its not $2.9 per ship, its expensive for first of class, then cheaper as you build...and again, this goes without mentioning the Zumwalt is replacing the Ticonderogas...a frigging crusier!

 

[Sea Toby]

That is a totally false and/or ignorant statement. The British CAP was complete in terms of presence with over 30 CAP missions flown per day. The leakage in the CAP screen had a lot more to do with poor tactics and command interference. The Argentines were never able to bomb at will and far more of their missions turned around and fled for home than persecuted attacks. Further there was nothing wrong with the Argentine fusing but rather the bombing altitude of the pilots. If they had their fuses set for instant arming then they might have sunk a few more frigates but at the cost of 10s of their own aircraft being blown out of the sky by their own bombs. There wasn’t any close air support because the British weren’t set up for it. The artillery provided the offensive support to the troops in action. There were over a hundred strike missions flown however which is hardly a low rate of effort for the size of the force and the magnitude of the CAP requirement.

I know your track record is far from impressive in the brains department but haven’t you noticed the hundreds of posts in this very thread pointing out that you can’t fit F-35Bs onto a Canberra LHD without consuming its amphibious capability. As to the small AV-8B/F-35B allotments assigned to USMC MEUs there role is very different to providing CAPs. As to providing a 24/7 CAP a STOVL carrier tends to have the capability for 24 hour operations because of its lower flight deck crew demands. As long as you resource the squadron with enough pilots to keep up the rate of effort. Then of course carriers being ships they can move and will frequently sail in and out of threat zones. As in the Falklands where every night the fleet sailed further east and out of range of the Argentine threat. So they didn’t need to maintain a night CAP just a +5 deck alert.



The Tigers were not brought to provide close air support but to provide reconnaissance and escort to troop carrying helicopters. As to the air superiority argument if this was shared by the ADF then why are we buying SM6 and a cruise missile to shoot down threat aircraft over the horizon and destroy their airbases? Because the ADF knows that even in medium intensity scenarios there is little guarantee of air superiority not to mention the air supremacy needed to do away with layered air defences.

I'll take the words from my cousin over a pencil pusher who tells the tale of night time naval flight operations in the Persian Gulf. There were six carriers on the scene, and his carrier along with others were tasked for night operations. If Australia insists on fighting during daylight, they will be disappointed when the enemy fights at night.

Surely the Tiger helicopters weren't bought to carry troops or lift cargo.

Lots of fun night time carrier traps.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZQ9pS1b4R4"]Night Carrier Approach and Landing - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[Todjaeger]

I'll take the words from my cousin over a pencil pusher who tells the tale of night time naval flight operations in the Persian Gulf. There were six carriers on the scene, and his carrier along with others were tasked for night operations. If Australia insists on fighting during daylight, they will be disappointed when the enemy fights at night.

Surely the Tiger helicopters weren't bought to carry troops or lift cargo.

Lots of fun night time carrier traps.

Night Carrier Approach and Landing - YouTube

It is not that USN carriers cannot/do not conduct night ops... AFAIK the tasking for 24hr flight ops would require two carriers each with 12 hrs on/12 hrs off.

Anyway, the RAN is not ordering or receiving carriers, and the Fleet Air Arm is not receiving fixed wing aircraft and the RAAF is not receiving carrier-capable F-35's so the entire issue is moot.

 

[rand0m]

But I have one exeption, I would get a light carrier and it would be equiped with the RAAF's hornets and super hornets. I would also get harriers or f-35b's for the LHD's.

I might also add to your comments, the Spanish LHD is in some shape or form is a "light carrier". The Spanish plan on using it as dedicated aircraft carrier at times. Despite the intentions of the Australian Government & DoD (as already stated), it could be used as an aircraft carrier if required.

 

[SASWanabe]

I might also add to your comments, the Spanish LHD is in some shape or form is a "light carrier". The Spanish plan on using it as dedicated aircraft carrier at times. Despite the intentions of the Australian Government & DoD (as already stated), it could be used as an aircraft carrier if required.

no, the Spanish plan to use it to maintiain pilot qualification while their actual aircraft carrier (PDA) is in its maintainance cycle

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I'll take the words from my cousin over a pencil pusher who tells the tale of night time naval flight operations in the Persian Gulf. There were six carriers on the scene, and his carrier along with others were tasked for night operations. If Australia insists on fighting during daylight, they will be disappointed when the enemy fights at night.

No matter how many times things are explained to you they just don't get through your skull armour. A STOVL carrier (like HM Ships Invincible and Hermes in the Falklands) or even a ASW configured carrier (like HMAS Melbourne) have different flight ops tempos and demands on the flight deck crew compared to a strike carrier conducting cyclic ops like USN carriers. Cylic operations on a CATOBAR carrier can only be sustained for around 12 hours and carriers operate in shifts. On a STOVL carrier or ASW carrier the frequency of launches is much lower so they can need far less deck crew at any one time so can have two shifts in operation.

You can take your cousins words over mine only if you understand what each of us are saying. Clearly you don't understand because we are saying the same thing. Having you posting in a thread lowers the collective IQ by 25-50%.

 

[StobieWan]

Before this thread gets nastier, I would like to change the subject.
Looking at all the calls for a fourth AWD, remembering that we are getting three for about $8.8b. I had a brainwave. Why dont we approach our friends in the USN, and offer to buy a D1000 Zumwald (I think that is the name)., They are building three. 2 in one shipyard, 1 in another. They are large ships by RAN standards, and cost about $3b each, roughly the same as our AWD's. They are of about 12'000 tonnes, quite quick for their size and heavily armed compared to the Hobart class. But one of the main attractions for the RAN is the low crew size, 147. And delivery date would be slightly earlier than a 4th AWD. What do you think?fftopic

DDG-1000 doesn't (I believe) fit any of the requirements for Australia, plus the additional burden of an entirely unique single ship would be disproportionate. I don't think there's any money for a fourth Hobart anyway.

Last I heard, DDG-1000 won't provide terminal illumination for anything other than ESSM, so in terms of air defence, it'd be a step down as well.

Ian

 

[peterAustralia]

In an ideal world having a third carrier (I know the 2 we are getting from spain have some fancy acronym which I cant be stuffed looking up), would be a reasonable thing (IMHO)

It could concentrate solely on its air wing, with a fixed wing AEW component (possibly a drone), some helicopters for anti sub work and also troop transport, and additionally sove F35Cs for strike role and long range air defence. Notice I say F35C, not F35B, the carrier version, not the jump jet configuration. If we are getting F35As, then the commonality of having F35Cs would save some money.

The downside of all this is that it costs money,

Seems there is not quite enough money to go around,

Please recall for many years Australia has just one aircraft carrier, the Melbourne. It had skyhawks, trackers and wessexs (might have had sea kings later?). Did anyone at that time say,,, hang on, one carrier is not sustainable. If I recall correctly the Navy was very keen on their carrier and wanted it replaced,

My point is, IF there was enough money to go around, then a carrier devoted solely to its air group would be a reasonable thing (IMHO).

Could an adelaide class carrier (or whatever the proper acronym is) land and take of F35Cs if is was equipped with arrestor wires and a catapult. Or would it be trying to squeeze too much into a vessel. What is the smallest sized carrier that could accommodate out F18Fs, we have those planes already,,, so we have the parts etc in stock...(please humour me,,, I know we wont be getting on,,, just dreaming here)

 

[ADMk2]

I might also add to your comments, the Spanish LHD is in some shape or form is a "light carrier". The Spanish plan on using it as dedicated aircraft carrier at times. Despite the intentions of the Australian Government & DoD (as already stated), it could be used as an aircraft carrier if required.

F-35's could take off and land off our LHD's sure. But what they couldn't do is conduct any sort of sustained operations and they could only conduct the limited air operations they are capable of at the expense of our amphibious capability. So if we were to employ F-35's from them, they wouldn't be used for their amphibious capability, so um, we kind of wouldn't need the F-35b's to provide CAS for the amphibious forces we wouldn't have there....

Honestly people this isn't rocket science. The ships despite having a flat deck are NOT intended to operate STOVL fighters. If the HMAS Choules saga isn't poignant enough, RAN needs AMPHIBIOUS capability not fighter jets.

All the stupid what if's in the world are a waste of f*ckin time. Get over it! We aren't getting F-35b's, we aren't getting F-22's so leave the ridiculous pet wishlists at the door before coming in! Anyone who thinks these things are happening is absolutely delusional.

The Canberra Class will be used to conduct the same operations we have seen with Kanimbla and Manoora. They'll just do it better, with less operational risk and some operational capability beyond what they could provide.

THAT is it. :flaming

 

[the road runner]

So if we were to employ F-35's from them, they wouldn't be used for their amphibious capability, so um, we kind of wouldn't need the F-35b's to provide CAS for the amphibious forces we wouldn't have there....

Best reason i have ever heard for why we DONT need F-35Bs taking up space on our LHDs.

 

[sebas78]

Following other videos about the Collins replacement, there is one called in Youtube "The future evolution of Australia's submarines - Andrew Davies, ASPI " by Andrew Davies, where he says they have done a paper about the replacement, and you cand download the pdf form the Aspi web.

They comment different options but think the best way for the replacement is to keep working on the Collins, finally fixing any pending issue, and get a batch of Collins mark 1 "b" o "c".

That path would probably need to be plugged in the present Collins hull another module for an aip, if they wanted an aip for the replacement. In terms of phisical laws it would increase the displacement of the sub, but if that module could have some diesel then the big range wanted for Collins replacement would remain. We have the case of Mesma modules being plugged in Agosta o Scorpene subs.

Anyway changes to diesel engines would be needed in the replacement, as they have been part of the problems Collins had/have. So the new diesel package would be powered for the new displacement of Collins replacement with aip.

Similarly probably a modern electric/magnetic engine for the transmission would be ideal, as do German or French or Spanish subs.

And the last thing would the sonar suite and combat system, wheter to remain with Raytheon or go with Lockheed Martin, as the options from the Usa.

Other thing is the solidness of the pressure hull, the operative depth for the sub, which is methodology and steel.

Probably any of the European sub yards could assit to implement/improve/analyse Collins and sort out a program for an evolved Collins.
In the case of Navantia, they have the most powerful and lasting aip, they are developing (Navantia´s contractors) the transmission engine for a 2400 boat, but in any case Collins 2 could have any transmission engine, independent of any assistance general program from any other country´s sub yard.
The have the Lockheed sensors suite and combat system, together with other system form Spanish contractors, Saes, that have developed a Own Monitoring Noise System and another system to improve the performance of own sensor suite under own noise. And the towe sonar. All integrated in years work.
Navantia is usign for the S80 a high tensile steel wich would give operative depth to more than 400 mts. In fact in Bae they had problems to learn this steel, for the first domes, now Navantia has special heavy machinery for doing them.

But if they decided to plug in an aip module in evolved Collins, some more other things would be need, and see the compatibility. And the final result would be a more expensive sub than the S80, because of size, capacities, the normal.

Apart of the sub program, Australia is interested in Aor´s, fleet tankers, i can say the Spanish one is double hulled, can carry Tomahawks, can feed subs in the sea and can carry 2 heavy helos in hangar or 3 medium, and so many other things. Just to save some money, and taking advantage of the relation with Navantia, the sub deal and tanker deal could be done with the same yard, saving some money, not many millions but probably some.

 

[sebas78]

In the case about the steel and the hull, Navantia has been doing test with testing hulls at 600, 800 and 1000 meters, and didn´t break, it was twisted or turned but it didn´t open. But probably any hull taken at its limit, it is just a matter of number of times or time there that it takes to break.

Anyway any expertise on steel or hull can be gained from other yards, also with more experience on big hulls (Usa, Uk, France). Because the bigger the diameter of the hull, probably the more difficulties to have a solid hull, or the bigger ribs it needs.

 

[Sea Toby]

In an ideal world having a third carrier (I know the 2 we are getting from spain have some fancy acronym which I cant be stuffed looking up), would be a reasonable thing (IMHO)

It could concentrate solely on its air wing, with a fixed wing AEW component (possibly a drone), some helicopters for anti sub work and also troop transport, and additionally sove F35Cs for strike role and long range air defence. Notice I say F35C, not F35B, the carrier version, not the jump jet configuration. If we are getting F35As, then the commonality of having F35Cs would save some money.

The downside of all this is that it costs money,

Seems there is not quite enough money to go around,

Please recall for many years Australia has just one aircraft carrier, the Melbourne. It had skyhawks, trackers and wessexs (might have had sea kings later?). Did anyone at that time say,,, hang on, one carrier is not sustainable. If I recall correctly the Navy was very keen on their carrier and wanted it replaced,

My point is, IF there was enough money to go around, then a carrier devoted solely to its air group would be a reasonable thing (IMHO).

Could an adelaide class carrier (or whatever the proper acronym is) land and take of F35Cs if is was equipped with arrestor wires and a catapult. Or would it be trying to squeeze too much into a vessel. What is the smallest sized carrier that could accommodate out F18Fs, we have those planes already,,, so we have the parts etc in stock...(please humour me,,, I know we wont be getting on,,, just dreaming here)

Probably a French Charles de Gaulle, in the neighborhood of 40,000 tons... 3 billion Euros, most likely 4 billion plus Australian dollars, just for the ship...

 

[rand0m]

F-35's could take off and land off our LHD's sure. But what they couldn't do is conduct any sort of sustained operations and they could only conduct the limited air operations they are capable of at the expense of our amphibious capability. So if we were to employ F-35's from them, they wouldn't be used for their amphibious capability, so um, we kind of wouldn't need the F-35b's to provide CAS for the amphibious forces we wouldn't have there....

Honestly people this isn't rocket science. The ships despite having a flat deck are NOT intended to operate STOVL fighters. If the HMAS Choules saga isn't poignant enough, RAN needs AMPHIBIOUS capability not fighter jets.

All the stupid what if's in the world are a waste of f*ckin time. Get over it! We aren't getting F-35b's, we aren't getting F-22's so leave the ridiculous pet wishlists at the door before coming in! Anyone who thinks these things are happening is absolutely delusional.

The Canberra Class will be used to conduct the same operations we have seen with Kanimbla and Manoora. They'll just do it better, with less operational risk and some operational capability beyond what they could provide.

THAT is it. :flaming

Sorry ADMk2 but in which part of my previous statement did I state that we are or even that I'd "like" to see it happen? I was purely mentioning that the LHD's are CAPABLE of running as a light aircraft carrier. I've been on these forums (or at least reading) long enough to memorise this entire thread back to front, please don't confuse me with a couple of others on here or direct any further rants at me.

Thank you.

 

[Todjaeger]

Sorry ADMk2 but in which part of my previous statement did I state that we are or even that I'd "like" to see it happen? I was purely mentioning that the LHD's are CAPABLE of running as a light aircraft carrier. I've been on these forums (or at least reading) long enough to memorise this entire thread back to front, please don't confuse me with a couple of others on here or direct any further rants at me.

Thank you.

I suppose it depends on what one considers 'running as a light aircraft carrier' to consist of. Yes, the JCI is designed to allow F-35B's to conduct flight ops from, at least sufficiently for pilots to maintain carrier landing/takeoff proficiency when the actual Spanish carrier is undergoing maintenance, refitting, etc.

Unless the Canberra-class LHD's have a very different internal configuration to that of the Spanish JCI, then even the JCI would have difficulty in maintaining an operational combat tempo with F-35B's. It is an issue of sufficient room to conduct needed aircraft maintenance between sorties, bunkerage available for aircraft, and munitions.

While the design certainly has displacement margins available for more fuel and munitions, are there sufficiently locations where either could be safely stored without hazarding the ship? And are any such locations in areas which would allow refueling and re-arming without hazarding the ship?

IIRC the consensus was that the JCI can carry ~800 tons of aviation fuel, which is sufficiently to allow a low sustained sortie rate, but if there was a high sortie rate, the fuel would be exhausted within a matter of days (less than a week) if not less.

The armoury available to store aircraft munitions imposes a similar restriction, a high operating tempo would quickly exhaust the dropable stores available.

-Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

IIRC the consensus was that the JCI can carry ~800 tons of aviation fuel, which is sufficiently to allow a low sustained sortie rate, but if there was a high sortie rate, the fuel would be exhausted within a matter of days (less than a week) if not less.

The armoury available to store aircraft munitions imposes a similar restriction, a high operating tempo would quickly exhaust the dropable stores available.

-Cheers

It wasn't very much, I crunched the numbers in a post in this thread, something like 3-4 F35B launching a few times a day would deplete the avgas in ~10 days. Add basic helo operations to that, etc and in real terms would would probably get less. And that's just one limitation, weapon storage for 10 days of sorties wouldn't be there either. F-35B is heavy with a large fuel load, and will guzzle it quiet quickly. In a war situation, it could operate as a very limited carrier for ~1 week if prepared and not performing in the amphib role.

Certainly not worthwhile enough to spend huge dollars (billions) on getting even a handful of F-35B's and compromising our entire amphibious capability to operate them.

There are posts here on every conceivable way of using them, lilly padding, CAS, in-conjunction with other assets (like USMC, USN, RN) carriers, having a ship continually supply the LHD with fuel etc, etc etc. All you get is a very inefficiently way of conducting operations (wasting billions) which the RAAF could do throughout the region from land bases far more effectively and efficiently, right now. Outside of region, the US or UK would provide air cover or we would operate from a land base.