He was just expressing an opinion on the nature of politicians, and Abbott has been proven to be a liar on how many occasions now? Settle down and don't start a d*ck measuring contest on defence budgets, it isn't helpful for the discussion nor is it in good form.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Neither the Hyuga or Izumo Class have the strengthened deck for fixed wing operations, they were not designed with the possibility of operating fixed wing aircraft, so I would also bet that the deck lift's would not be able to handle them either
Cheers
I would suggest that if we are seriously looking at a carrier force then we need to be looking at a dedicated ship (x2). We need a decent amphibious capability and the dock on the LHD's are pointless for a carrier.
More importantly, a dedicated light carrier could save us billions.
The F18Fs+Growlers are already in service, strike aircraft like that would be worth their weight in gold on any future Op. We can then look at F35Cs instead when the time comes to replace the Super Bugs.
More importantly, a dedicated light carrier could save us billions.
The F18Fs+Growlers are already in service, strike aircraft like that would be worth their weight in gold on any future Op. We can then look at F35Cs instead when the time comes to replace the Super Bugs.
Maybe with some mods, who knows? Haven't been able to dig up deck specs but the Marines did land a couple of Ospreys on the Hyuga last year. MV-22 and F-35B have similar max loaded weights and engine exhaust temps AFAIK.
t68
Well-Known Member
Yep my thoughts exactly, if we were serious 6 Squadron can if we ask nicely could make it part off their syllabus with the U.S. 7th Fleet forward-deployed naval forces (FDNF) in Yokosuka, Japan for training purposes till we get a carrier of our own.
The Spanish had on the drawing boards a BSAC of 25000 t displacement and 221 in length too short for effective CATOBAR ops as the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91) is marginal for E2 Hawkeye so if we do go the CATOBAR route we need a ship with a minimum length of 262m
Here is a fictional RAN capability of the proposed replacement for Melbourne. Most commentary has the HMAS Melbourne (R21) at best because of her small compliment of aircraft and time on station. I imagine this Spanish version would be the same, at the end of the day the choice of vessel will largely depend on what exactly they want the RAN to accomplish if they are looking for additional fleet defence at range something the LHD will be lacking with ARH outside of land based RAAF support, it could be done for a limited time while sacrificing spots for the helicopters.
Australia class (BSAC 220) aircraft carrier - Marshall Wiki
I am curious as to the length a light carrier would need to be. Launching F18s would preclude the use of a ramp unless we were happy to load them lightly which seems to be a waste.
Aircraft like the E2 would probably be out of the question so my guess would be that a modified ISR King Air-type aircraft would be the limit of our dollars in regards to new airframes types.
Does the electronic CATOBAR (sp?) reduce the length required?
Aircraft like the E2 would probably be out of the question so my guess would be that a modified ISR King Air-type aircraft would be the limit of our dollars in regards to new airframes types.
Does the electronic CATOBAR (sp?) reduce the length required?
t68
Well-Known Member
Ok sorry about that, but I was trying to find the the drawing of the proposed design which the Spanish made in relation to a conventional carrier for the Chinese that is the basis of that wikimarshall link.
Jeneral2885
Banned Member
There's only going to be 30 Merlin Mk2s in the Royal Navy and they will have to juggle both ASW and ASAC/AEW work with the new carrier/carriers in operation. That's a lot of work for the RN.
And given the difference in the extent of deployments, the RAN doesnt look that bad. It still holds quite a punch.
Jeneral2885
Banned Member
There's no way in the world that the RAN is getting back into fixed wing CATOBAR ops. That's giggle-jacket land in terms of cost/organisational changes. I think even F35B in small numbers is a stretch, and possibly a WOFTAM for the capability obtained vs cost.
Am I missing something???
Its gone from PM Abbott saying something along the lines of we havnt ruled out the F35B, Ill get some experts to see if its viable to operate them off the Canberra class ships.
Now we are seeing posts about Japanese LHD,s being thrown in the mix, ACC capable of using F18F/G,s, all sorts of paper ships....he just said he hasnt ruled out the B,s, not we buying 35B,s and a new ACC to fly them off for F@#k,s sake!
Its gone from PM Abbott saying something along the lines of we havnt ruled out the F35B, Ill get some experts to see if its viable to operate them off the Canberra class ships.
Now we are seeing posts about Japanese LHD,s being thrown in the mix, ACC capable of using F18F/G,s, all sorts of paper ships....he just said he hasnt ruled out the B,s, not we buying 35B,s and a new ACC to fly them off for F@#k,s sake!
Too true Bonza and it is not like that this thread hasn't already become fictional enough as it is.
http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/289/286/munrolott.pdf
Above is a professionals view albeit from the RN perspective. Though over a decade old now still worth a read and in this context still relevant. From page 33 he puts the boot into "Vanity" Carriers ....
Oh, I believe it's pretty obvious nothing is going to come of any of this. This has as much chance of seeing reality as SSNs.
But if we're going to play the "F35Bs on the LHDs" and "LHD = Carrier" game (again!) then I'm adding CATOBAR to the mix just for s**ts and giggles.
But if we're going to play the "F35Bs on the LHDs" and "LHD = Carrier" game (again!) then I'm adding CATOBAR to the mix just for s**ts and giggles.
t68
Well-Known Member
PM Abbout asked for a report on the viability of operating B of the LHD, therefore he might have a small measure of Knoledge ofwhat is needed to operate fast jet capabilty.
Now I like to have a bet here and their but I reckon the report to the PM will state the benifits to goverment of of a fast jet capabilty knock back the idea of operating B off the LHD and will only be viable of a deck to make use of the capabilty to its fullest potential, now depending on what the report suggests will dictate if a light version is need or something that has better has better long term future something the size of Carles de Gaulle R91 or bigger
Even the UK relises that they may I the future modifiy the QEC to operate cat& traps in the future, if we take that stance then we may aswell do it properly from the start a catobar carrier will give more options from the start.
Can we at least wait untill the white paper is done before we go off on an aircraft carrier wish list?
I BET that the RAN would like a 4th AWD, a replacement for Tobruk, more than 6 new ANZAC,s, an oiler, new subs, new patrol boats, geez lets add an aircraft carrier.
Dont get me wrong, I would like to see an aircraft carrier in the RAN, just cant see it happening. I can see the RAAF getting some 35B,s and P8 x 12, UAV,s and some other goodies.
Army still need to replace the M113,s, the uni mogs, more M1,s SP Arty, SAM plus logistic systems, maybe some helo,s.
A lot of money going down range, and the Libs still want, will deliver a surplus.
I BET that the RAN would like a 4th AWD, a replacement for Tobruk, more than 6 new ANZAC,s, an oiler, new subs, new patrol boats, geez lets add an aircraft carrier.
Dont get me wrong, I would like to see an aircraft carrier in the RAN, just cant see it happening. I can see the RAAF getting some 35B,s and P8 x 12, UAV,s and some other goodies.
Army still need to replace the M113,s, the uni mogs, more M1,s SP Arty, SAM plus logistic systems, maybe some helo,s.
A lot of money going down range, and the Libs still want, will deliver a surplus.
t68
Well-Known Member
I hear what you are saying; well RAN already has the Tobruk replacements in Choules, Bill& Ben by the new LHD fleet oilers are next on the list, subs and patrol frigates have advanced programs that are in place.
I believe it was Chief of Navy Vice Admiral Russell Shalders pushing the carrier wheelbarrow when we first got the LHD green lighted, I liked to think he didn’t Suffer fools gladly.
One must remember that as GF has stated numerous times asset do not work in isolation they are force multipliers, the carrier has a decisive part to play in the Air-Sea Battle. The Air-Sea Battle concept is about the ability of the Air Force and Navy to perform highly integrated operations that will enhance their effectiveness across a range of contingencies, flying a few F35B off the LHD does not meet that challenge unlike a platform which is set up to meet that challenge.
But the cost to convert some of a F-35A purchase to a F-35B purchase is relatively little. If the last squad was a mix of 14 F-35B/14 F-35A the price difference would be perhaps a $100-$200 million. The F-35B can perform nearly identically to a F-35A in all other roles, so if they can operate in any useful way off the LHD then for $100-$200m you have gained useful capability. Throw in $50m to make improvements for operating LHD's with F-35B and you have a fairly low cost project with low risk and high common logistics that may give Australia useful capability and enhance our F-35A, AWD and LHD capability augmenting, multiplying and complimenting it.
You would be able to train Army, Navy and Air force with F-35B's, so that we can integrate more closely with allied forces. The F-35 is such a game changer in terms of situational awareness, ISR, CAS, low observables, EW etc that we will need to spend considerable time with Army and Navy to embed and make use of those new capabilities. Our pilots would become better/more diversely trained, with more opportunity to work with US, UK etc forces and greater relevance for the air force for international missions.
Acquiring a completely new ship (and or new ship type) would add a huge cost (Billion plus, for CATOBAR multi billions), huge risk etc. Thats not on the table at this stage.
Acquiring F-35B would impact on LHD use and upgrades, fleet oilers purchase, RAAF training facilities and upgrades, RAAF logistics etc. It would be good if we looked into this now to ensure suitable funds/equipment etc are made available.
It might come back and say the F-35 in no way can operate off the LHD's, or huge sum of money would need to be spent to make it compatible. Or operations so compromised its not worth pursuing.
- Status