Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

RAAF drivers for RAN fixed wing fleet air arm has been discussed a few years back

I suppose, with a few exceptions, the ADF is a lot more purple now than it was in 1982. The RAAF probably wouldn't mind flying off a LHD or a small carrier in exchange for 28 additional airframes they may not get otherwise. Besides if the Army can do it (Tigers and MRH90s off LHDs) the RAAF can do it better

In 1982 there wasn't a joint harrier for to model on, or a joint helicopter force, no new RN carriers or close exposure to the USMC. RAAFies like the other services like to get out and actually do stuff and flying F-35Bs of RAN and friendly decks is doing stuff, very exciting stuff that I imagine few RAAF combat pilots would turn their noses up at.

 

[Todjaeger]

Given a choice, I would much rather have any fixed wing air ops to/from the LHD's or any other proposed RAN vessel be with aircraft fufilling the roles of the old S-2 Tracker/E-1 Tracer and COD.

While fast jet ops might be more 'sexy', the ability to dramatically increase and sustain the area awareness around a RAN task force would IMO be much more valuable, not only to the RAN, but any allies which the ADF would be operating alongside.

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Given a choice, I would much rather have any fixed wing air ops to/from the LHD's or any other proposed RAN vessel be with aircraft fufilling the roles of the old S-2 Tracker/E-1 Tracer and COD.

While fast jet ops might be more 'sexy', the ability to dramatically increase and sustain the area awareness around a RAN task force would IMO be much more valuable, not only to the RAN, but any allies which the ADF would be operating alongside.

-Cheers

yep. I'm more interested in the phatships being part of the ASW solution than the other capabilities...

 

[aussienscale]

In fact, this is the most perceptive post on this subject I've seen here since the original PM allusion to different types.

I know that this is the Naval/Maritime forum, but the F-35B brings capabilities other than populating the deck of a carrier or LHD.

Think Harrier. Hundreds of GR.1, GR.3, GR.7 and GR.9 aircraft were manufactured for the RAF, which doesn't have any ships at all. Stand aside the practicality of operating a 5G aircraft from a forest clearing, the F-35B would still offer the RAAF a capability to operate from damaged fields, small fields, makeshift fields and so on and also to operate in extremis from a suitable RAN ship (think Falklands for RAF ops) or as a pool of aircraft capable of routine operations with the RAN to provide an extra integrated support capability to Navy and Army amphibious ops. (Here, think Joint Force Harrier)

There'd be tradeoffs. Shorter legs, different equipment to support and cost for example. The decision should be made on the basis of whether the possible benefits outweigh the costs for Australia.

Summary - it isn't all Navy!

os127

No one is suggesting that the possibility of F-35B's would be an RAN only capability, the general consensus on the forum has always been that any acquisition of the B's would be by the RAAF, they would not be in RAN control, so no re-forming of the FAA. They would have great utility for the RAAF beyond just hopping off the LHD's, but their use at sea, I believe, is the major driving factor on whether we get any.

Without that use on LHD's or any other future possibility would wipe out the chance of the RAAF getting any at all. This has been discussed once or twice before, but if you feel like a little bit of reading here is a good thread where just about every possible angle on the subject and others was discussed

Cheers

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/hypothetical-carrier-buy-ran-10410/

 

[aussienscale]

yep. I'm more interested in the phatships being part of the ASW solution than the other capabilities...

What do you think is on the horizon for that option ? and what potential fitout/embarkment do you think would provide that type of utility ?

Cheers

 

[RobWilliams]

All that might be true but right now, it lacks harpoon, it has a pi...ant missile and CEC is way off if ever, therefor F104 comes off better armed and info ed

Not anymore, besides I don't get what your point is even if the RN weren't fitting Harpoon. If the space/weight savings are designed into the hull (because they are) then what would stop the RAN buying Harpoon and installing it themselves? Why would the RN not having it make it 'worse' if the design clearly can take it?

CEC has been postponed for the next planning cycle (AFAIK the first was from 2012 - 2022 so perhaps after then when Type 26's start hitting the water), but CEC is being added as a modification to the F-104 design(according to the AWDA) to match the F-105 baseline, so why is it bad to have to modify the Type 45 to fit CEC (a vessel not short on space) which was a system which was designed to be fitted into the ship at some point were it not cut for penny pinching when modifications were going to be needed for the Hobarts? It wouldn't be that hard to integrate CEC into a ship the size of a Type 45 when the plan during the design phase would be that less Type 45's + CEC makes up for less AWD's so the ability to take CEC was designed into the ship?

The RN doesn't have to build a RAN spec vessel to make it suitable for the RAN, the RAN is demonstrating how to take a vessel and adapt if for their requirements.

In fact if you're already using the US combat system and sensors, then why would Euro missiles be a problem? If you're using a US combat system then it'll already work with the missiles of your desire like SM-2 or SM-6 and the Mk41 cells (of which there are space/weight margins for 64 strike length in the Type 45*) so why are Euro missiles a big deal?

*Actually that's 48 A-70 plus 16 Mk41, considering the Mk41 is a more dense VLS than the A-70 then you could be hitting 70+

The only main thing would be the addition of surface launched torps as I don't think that's something ever planned for the Type 45.

Don't mind criticising RN vessels, but when the criticisms can be inaccurate or unfairly directed at the Type 45 alone then that's something I object to.

 

[ngatimozart]

Given a choice, I would much rather have any fixed wing air ops to/from the LHD's or any other proposed RAN vessel be with aircraft fufilling the roles of the old S-2 Tracker/E-1 Tracer and COD.

While fast jet ops might be more 'sexy', the ability to dramatically increase and sustain the area awareness around a RAN task force would IMO be much more valuable, not only to the RAN, but any allies which the ADF would be operating alongside.

-Cheers

To fly any fixed wing aircraft other than VTOL of a RAN carrier, the RAN would have to invest in a CATOBAR system which is expensive compared to the STOVL carrier / LHD type being mooted here. AEW roll can be done by rotary wing now and not necessarily the RN way, instead using an AESA being bolted on either side of the aircraft giving 360º coverage. For example the RN doesn't use COD per se, utilising RAS instead, hence the RAN could follow that path, which would be more pragmatic given the LHDs and that if the ADF was to go down the F35B path then it would make sense for them to have a similar vessel. Don't forget the F35 itself has a comprehensive sensor, data management and dissemination suite so one or two F35Bs on CAP over, or in reasonably close vicinity to, the fleet or task force would in theory add to the situation awareness. Another point regarding AEW, is that the E7 Wedgetails have AAR capability so that also theoretically gives them extended range offshore and longer time on station. But then that depends on RAAF asset availability and recycle rate. However all this is really moot because it hasn't been yet determined if the ADF will return to naval fast jet aviation. Interesting though.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Given a choice, I would much rather have any fixed wing air ops to/from the LHD's or any other proposed RAN vessel be with aircraft fufilling the roles of the old S-2 Tracker/E-1 Tracer and COD.

While fast jet ops might be more 'sexy', the ability to dramatically increase and sustain the area awareness around a RAN task force would IMO be much more valuable, not only to the RAN, but any allies which the ADF would be operating alongside.

-Cheers

I would imagine it would be done with land based aircraft (wedgetails, P3/p8), helicopters, ships, HSV, land based sensors (JORN), UAV, UUV etc. The F-35 itself could be used as ISR.

Will be interesting to see if the F-35B supports rough and ready operations. I don't know if this has been a priority for the F-35 program.

Still I think what the F-35B could bring on a ship is pretty mind blowing. Good news I guess is that we might see RN or USMC F-35B operating off the LHD sooner rather than later.

Which would be interesting in terms of what the Skijump provides operationally. I was quite surprised that the america class still didn't feature a ski jump. Most of the other "carriers" other nations seem to be acquiring also don't have ski jumps.

 

[Todjaeger]

To fly any fixed wing aircraft other than VTOL of a RAN carrier, the RAN would have to invest in a CATOBAR system which is expensive compared to the STOVL carrier / LHD type being mooted here. AEW roll can be done by rotary wing now and not necessarily the RN way, instead using an AESA being bolted on either side of the aircraft giving 360º coverage. For example the RN doesn't use COD per se, utilising RAS instead, hence the RAN could follow that path, which would be more pragmatic given the LHDs and that if the ADF was to go down the F35B path then it would make sense for them to have a similar vessel. Don't forget the F35 itself has a comprehensive sensor, data management and dissemination suite so one or two F35Bs on CAP over, or in reasonably close vicinity to, the fleet or task force would in theory add to the situation awareness. Another point regarding AEW, is that the E7 Wedgetails have AAR capability so that also theoretically gives them extended range offshore and longer time on station. But then that depends on RAAF asset availability and recycle rate. However all this is really moot because it hasn't been yet determined if the ADF will return to naval fast jet aviation. Interesting though.

Not necessarily. Depending on airframe design, I suspect some of the older prop-driven aircraft could take off from an LHD without requiring the use of a catapult. What might present a problem would be the landing and recovery.

There is also the potential for AEW and/or ASW variants of the V-22 Osprey being developed.

As for land-based AEW&C support from RAAF Wedgetails... the aircraft themselves still have an operational loiter time limit of some 15-18 hours which AFAIK is not impacted by AAR. All the AAR could do is allow the Wedgetail to fly further out to the loiter/area of operations.

One the things I have against helicopter-based AEW systems is the altitude limit helicopters have. That negatively impacts the antennae altitude which impacts radar horizon and a host of other, follow-on effects. Another area AEW helicopters are limited in, are the number of control operations which could manage and interpret the informing coming back into the AEW from the radar and other sensor arrays.

 

[ASSAIL]

Not anymore, besides I don't get what your point is even if the RN weren't fitting Harpoon. If the space/weight savings are designed into the hull (because they are) then what would stop the RAN buying Harpoon and installing it themselves? Why would the RN not having it make it 'worse' if the design clearly can take it?

CEC has been postponed for the next planning cycle (AFAIK the first was from 2012 - 2022 so perhaps after then when Type 26's start hitting the water), but CEC is being added as a modification to the F-104 design(according to the AWDA) to match the F-105 baseline, so why is it bad to have to modify the Type 45 to fit CEC (a vessel not short on space) which was a system which was designed to be fitted into the ship at some point were it not cut for penny pinching when modifications were going to be needed for the Hobarts? It wouldn't be that hard to integrate CEC into a ship the size of a Type 45 when the plan during the design phase would be that less Type 45's + CEC makes up for less AWD's so the ability to take CEC was designed into the ship?

The RN doesn't have to build a RAN spec vessel to make it suitable for the RAN, the RAN is demonstrating how to take a vessel and adapt if for their requirements.

In fact if you're already using the US combat system and sensors, then why would Euro missiles be a problem? If you're using a US combat system then it'll already work with the missiles of your desire like SM-2 or SM-6 and the Mk41 cells (of which there are space/weight margins for 64 strike length in the Type 45*) so why are Euro missiles a big deal?

*Actually that's 48 A-70 plus 16 Mk41, considering the Mk41 is a more dense VLS than the A-70 then you could be hitting 70+

The only main thing would be the addition of surface launched torps as I don't think that's something ever planned for the Type 45.

Don't mind criticising RN vessels, but when the criticisms can be inaccurate or unfairly directed at the Type 45 alone then that's something I object to.

Not critiscising T45, just pointing out that they currently make do with inferior gun, missile etc. and yet all happily call them destroyers. Harking back to the comments that the AWD should be called a frigate so was simply pointing out the inconsistency. I know you Brits get very protective about kit so was repaying in kind

 

[RobWilliams]

Not critiscising T45, just pointing out that they currently make do with inferior gun, missile etc. and yet all happily call them destroyers. Harking back to the comments that the AWD should be called a frigate so was simply pointing out the inconsistency. I know you Brits get very protective about kit so was repaying in kind

Ah ok, I thought you were commenting that the outlined reasons which made Type 45 unsuitable for a RAN AWD where the F-104/5 was.

Trouble is most of what she *doesn't* have gets chalked down to 'future growth', if she was fully kitted out right of the gate then if we wanted the growth from that then we'd be talking about a, 8,500t or 9000t ship.

4.5in is a good gun system as is the Aster family*, but I suppose the additional factor is that in either roles we'll be backed up by fixed wing as well as system development

*Aster family being a system which knocked out a Mach 2.5 drone skimming at 5m altitude so isn't that much of an inferior missile if it came to FLAAD of SSMs when combined with good sensors

 

[swerve]

Which would be interesting in terms of what the Skijump provides operationally. I was quite surprised that the america class still didn't feature a ski jump. Most of the other "carriers" other nations seem to be acquiring also don't have ski jumps.

US LHDs & LHAs don't have ski-jumps because they're amphibious assault ships & a ski-jump would adversely affect that by losing a helicopter spot.

Or so say the Americans. Everyone else who's built or fitted out a ship without catapults for fixed wing aircraft since the invention of the ski-jump has put one on it, because of the performance improvement it gives, & USMC Harrier pilots who've flown off ski-jumps rave about how great they are.

It's been suggested that the USN won't have ski-jumps because it wants to keep as big a margin as possible between its carriers & STOVL ships, lest some politician try to argue that it can build cheaper STOVL carriers. I have no idea of the veracity of that.

 

[colay]

.

It's been suggested that the USN won't have ski-jumps because it wants to keep as big a margin as possible between its carriers & STOVL ships, lest some politician try to argue that it can build cheaper STOVL carriers. I have no idea of the veracity of that.

I don't know how valid that rationale is now that the F-35B will be able to outrange and outperform the SH.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It's been suggested that the USN won't have ski-jumps because it wants to keep as big a margin as possible between its carriers & STOVL ships, lest some politician try to argue that it can build cheaper STOVL carriers. I have no idea of the veracity of that.

But the america class has no dock and is effectively a F-35B carrier. Its not like it would be conducting an amphibious mission by itself, it would have a LHD with it and between them they have more than enough helo spots.

The carriers I was refering to are the Korean and Japanese helicopter "carriers". Which are flat.

There was talk about a modern version of the OV-10. Which would be an interesting aircraft, able to take two stretchers + carer, 1.5t cargo, 5 paratroopers. 6.2+ hr flight time and a service ceiling considerably higher (30000ft), able to carry up to 16 hellfires.

I would imagine it would be able to be kitted out with decent radar and be cheaper to operate than a V-22. There is a brochure boeing made about an upgraded version.
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/Technical/boeing_ov-10(x)_super_bronco_info_card_2009_01.pdf

I think the V-22 is an extremely impressive aircraft, the ~$70million fly away cost for a standard version I think might cut it from being considered. Although being able to launch refueling assets from our LHD would be again a very interesting capability. Also not sure how many V-22 the LHD can hanger or operate. They are pretty huge.
They also slurp up 6-7 tons of fuel.

 

[swerve]

But the america class has no dock and is effectively a F-35B carrier. Its not like it would be conducting an amphibious mission by itself, it would have a LHD with it and between them they have more than enough helo spots.

Don't argue with me. I'm quoting what I've been told is the official US line. Argue with the USN.

How many America class ships without docks are being built? Not exactly a lot. And what's this about them being carriers? Compare the size, & the number of troops carried, with Cavour. Over 5 times as many marines, in 1.7 times the tonnage. Or compare with Charles de Gaulle, & look at how much bigger her deck is, on the same tonnage - because CdG is a real carrier. No, they're amphibs first, & aircraft carriers second.

The carriers I was refering to are the Korean and Japanese helicopter "carriers". Which are flat. ...

And are not built to operate fixed-wing aircraft, so obviously don't have any use for a ski-jump, any more than Mistral, or the Santi, which are also flat-topped ships which use their flat decks for helicopters. Nobody calls them carriers, though Mistral is the same size as Dokdo & Hyuuga.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Don't argue with me. I'm quoting what I've been told is the official US line. Argue with the USN.

Sorry, my post wasn't meant to imply disagreement. More about curiosity. It will be interesting how the USMC operates the America class. It interesting because for a while there was this idea that you could turn a LHD into a carrier by sealing up the dock and sticking F-35B's on it. Even natavias claim of 50 days of independent operations of up to 12 STOVL aircraft seems somewhat a long bow with many conditions.

Im also interested how the F-35B operates on a skijump, as in what sort of performance they get out of it.

And are not built to operate fixed-wing aircraft, so obviously don't have any use for a ski-jump, any more than Mistral, or the Santi, which are also flat-topped ships which use their flat decks for helicopters. Nobody calls them carriers, though Mistral is the same size as Dokdo & Hyuuga.

I don't think we will see them operate off any of those. Of course Australia's canberra class is not a carrier, even if it does have a ski jump and a F-35B embarked on it.

 

[Monitor66]

Don't argue with me. I'm quoting what I've been told is the official US line. Argue with the USN.

How many America class ships without docks are being built? Not exactly a lot. And what's this about them being carriers? Compare the size, & the number of troops carried, with Cavour. Over 5 times as many marines, in 1.7 times the tonnage. Or compare with Charles de Gaulle, & look at how much bigger her deck is, on the same tonnage - because CdG is a real carrier. No, they're amphibs first, & aircraft carriers second.



And are not built to operate fixed-wing aircraft, so obviously don't have any use for a ski-jump, any more than Mistral, or the Santi, which are also flat-topped ships which use their flat decks for helicopters. Nobody calls them carriers, though Mistral is the same size as Dokdo & Hyuuga.

Looks like the first two ships (Flight 0; LHA-6 and LHA-7) of the 11 America-class LHAs will have no well dock.

LHA-8, 9 and 10 (Flight 1) will feature a well dock plus a smaller island superstructure to make more deck space available for MV-22 and F-35B maintenance activities.

 

[swerve]

Sorry if I jumped down your throat.

I think it's been mentioned upthread that the RAN LHDs are even less carrier-like than Juan Carlos 1, due to RAN-specific mods, & IIRC JC1 needs a while in port for additional equipment to be fitted (equipment Australia hasn't bought, & which the RAN LHDs may well not be fitted to receive), & the dock gate sealed, before operating as an auxiliary carrier, so yes, they're not carriers, despite F-35B being able to land on & take off from them. In emergencies only, IMO, or for trials.

Harriers get a massive performance boost from a ski-jump. I don't have the numbers to hand, but they should be fairly easy to find. Should be similar for F-35B.

Here's a bit about ski-jumps from Pprune some years back, in which John Farley (former Harrier chief test pilot) joins in. Interesting & informative.

 

[colay]

Im also interested how the F-35B operates on a skijump, as in what sort of performance they get out of it.
.

I would assume similar benefits to what Harrier enjoyed with the advent of the ramp. IIRC Harrier was able to take off in half the distance with a typical 10Klb load of weapons/fuel or haul a 13Klb load using 600-ft. run.
I think that the ramp on CVF coupled with SRVL that their F-35B fleet will employ will be a superior arrangement for the RN.

 

[aussienscale]

So coming back to the possibility of using the LHD's for ASW as mentioned by Tod and GF, I have been doing a little reading and some of the future systems look interesting.

Many that would not take away from the primary role of the Canberra's, but also future modular systems that can also be used for the Future Frigates, OCV and also UUV systems for the Collins replacement, which could also be used by surface skimmers.

Modules could easily be containerised and be highly transportable for quick change over of requirements as the situation changes/dictates

| The Future of Maritime Warfare: Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs)

The use of UUV's from not only Collins replacement (UUV is a listed requirement) for not only MCM and ISR mission but also for ASW, such future systems could also be used from the LHD's, Frigates and OCV's

ADCOM Systems unveiled the first fixed wing UAV for anti-submarine warfare at Dubai Airshow

http://www.adcom-systems.com/PDF/UAV/UNITED40-Block5.PDF

The use of UAV's for not only ISR but also ASW is pretty much here, such systems as above could very easily be adapted for use of LHD's or any type of flat top, while the above example is still just a demonstrator as such, utility, loiter time etc would make it a very valuable tool indeed. I could not find any specific specs on take off and landing distances for the Adcom United 40, but I am sure the development of a STOL type UAV similar to this would not be hard to achieve

Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel (ACTUV)

This from DARPA, although touted as operating from a home port, depending on size, weight etc could also be deployable from the LHD's etc, interesting concept, with the space on the Canberra's in ops and control rooms, very doable as well

http://www.kokodafoundation.org/Resources/Documents/KP16(final).pdf

Just to ad some local context from an RAN point of view a paper from the Kokoda Foundation, I have not had time to read, but though I would throw it in for digestion and comment

Cheers