This is a discussion on A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN? within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Its reality rather than assumption.
Field Report: British GR7 Harrier IIs in Afghanistan
FOXNews.com - Marine Harrier Jets Pound Kandahar ...
Yeah, and now think about how long it was from the arrival of the GR.7's etc at kandahar until the facilities had improved enough for Tornado to operate. For some reason, even if the F-35 does not require a long runway to take off, I have a feeling its facility requirements will mirror Tornado more closely then they do those required by Harrier.
These are just hypothetical musings as there are no F-35B equipped carriers yet.
The rationale for CAP is more than just putting planes in the air. Today's tech enables aggressors to detect targets and launch anti-ship missiles from further away. To intercept these aggressor must necessarily include long range detection. Planes in the air reduces interception timings allowing interceptions to take place further. So CAP is not an outdated concept. One plays defense at the same time as undertaking offensive ops. It applies even for land based CAP over fleet in littorals.
Relying solely on ship based detection eg Hobart is precisely the same problem as Falklands. Horizon (earth's curvature) restricts range of sea level detection of sea level targets.
Unfortunately, there are few AWACs options for CVs. Helo AEWs don't have sustainability. E-2s/E-3s can't operate from VSTOL carriers. That's one reason why the QEs were procured.
Agree that SSK/subs are a different dimensional threat. This is not new and tactics wise has been debated since the days of Russian subs posing a threat to US CVN group (as well as in the Falklands).
I don't really disagree with any of the above (because you talk sense) but a 3 ship screen of Aegis destroyers would represent a pretty formidable defence IMO - much better than anything the RN had in 1982 . With a new force of RAAF Airbus A330 tankers & 737 AWACS aircraft (AAR capable ?) on hand some level of air support might be possible over a surprisingly large percentage of the worlds oceans . In the Falklands for example RAF Vulcan & Nimrod aircraft did just about get themselves in on the action at extreme range - although the effort involved vis-a vis the results achieved might not make that an example worth copying !
A ship designed from a clean sheet of paper could have its lifts and hangers designed (or adapted) to accommodate the proposed RN MASC V22 'Osprey' variant . Thinking outside the box (and why not ?) some kind of unmanned long endurance/high altitude AEW airship (better not call it a Blimp ) could prove to be both relatively cheap & highly capable .
In the case the ran decides to put a full squadron of jets in the sea, then they can buy a light carrier or buy a bay class, which would be cheaper, and it is supposed to be able to hangar 2 chinooks if needed.
With a bay or similar type (galicia cheaper then chinooks in the other canberra), they have more flexibility for different operations, human help, simultaneous deployments, 3 hospitals, ferry tasks. But a canberra had to be used as light carrier, whenever wanted, with the heavy load deck and dock as interesting space for normal supplies, frozen supplies, jp5, and weapons, or simply for more vehicles and army soldiers complementing the "bay" and the other canberra, or more space for uavīs.
Non navy helos hanger capacity is less: 2 canberras vs 1 canb+1galicia (if 1 canb as carrier), but not vehicle or troop transport capacity: 2 canbs vs 1 canb+1/2 canb+1galic.
I suppose that is the cheapest option, apart from the step below that, that is to put 3 or 4 jets in each canberra and combine the helos and jets whenever is possible as wasp class do, it is an existing concept, and will do with f35bīs and without skyjump.
Cheers.
Last edited by agc33e; July 2nd, 2010 at 04:27 PM.
Can we stop some of the theoretical armchair nonsense as this thread is turning to crap again
we already know what the effective baseline for any fixed wing jet fighter aircraft complement on any carrier is. 6 is not it. You do not hit any of the protection, projection, persistence and sortie rates needed to go against a mildly protected facility and/or location.
so can we stop having these kinds of theoretical chats passed off as insight and where some are completely ignoring how we fight wars and why we have baseline numbers in the first place.
6 STOL/VSTOL fixed wing assets is a complete WOFTAM to initiate and enter the fight in complex and/or contested space. They are supplementary assets, they are incapable of dictating any fight except if they were to go up against a pre-sanitised location (which is how we all operate anyway) or unless the red force had no ADS of any sort - including manpads.
In any instance - air does not go into contested space unless its been cleared for entry by other elements.
This is really starting to get silly, and some of the chat is close to nonsensical.
Stay on the facts, not on what some might wish it could be - and where its apparent that they are unaware of what the limitations of half squadrons of combat jets are in these circumstances.
enough is enough
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
With a new force of RAAF Airbus A330 tankers & 737 AWACS aircraft (AAR capable ?) on hand some level of air support might be possible over a surprisingly large percentage of the worlds oceans . In the Falklands for example RAF Vulcan & Nimrod aircraft did just about get themselves in on the action at extreme range - although the effort involved vis-a vis the results achieved might not make that an example worth copying
Agree. The black buck mission involved 15 tankers (2 million lbs of fuel total, each tanker carrying 123k lbs) to send 1 bomber and a nimrod round the world to drop a stick of Mk-82s (for 1 hit) on an airfield that eventually needed Harriers to finish the job.
Don't think RAAF can (or would) do that even with the A-330s. Tanker support sounds good but the numbers won't support large deployments a long way ie its going to be half sqns.
Only the brits would be crazy enough to send 20 harriers in 2 CVLs to fight contested airspace/waters ie falklands against a force 5-10 times its size.
Having said that, I think the point is not stated about half sqns on LHDs. Its fleet protection rather than force projection. In WW2, the Australian government refused to deploy a single troop outside of Australia via sea until the British provided a battleship escort. In that same period, crazy Britain armed its merchantships with single fighters (catapult armed ships) to escort ships via the Atlantic crossing.
Enemy fleet detection in open waters is still best undertaken by single MPA aircraft. Whack that aircraft and the aggressor is blinded. Submarines may be a threat but their detection range is still limited and subs are getting less and less affordable ie fewer. Subs will still have to network with MPAs or ground radar to achieve an intercept. MPA radar is still limited to ~200nm. An F-35B (with supersonic flight capability) armed with 50nm AMRAAMs rather than a Hobart is the perfect weapon with the best range and speed to take down the pesky MPAs. Far slower harriers can't intercept nor can land-based fighters maintain 24/7 cover.
Don't forget, aggressors can't afford massive fighter support for MPAs either due to tanker constraint, operational range of MPAs etc. One doesn't need that many F-35Bs to accomplish the protected passage mission.
Whether its cost-effective to have the F-35Bs onboard, that's an entirely different question.
Just wanted to point something out. Particularly after GF expressed his concerns about this "armchair admiralty" going on.
At the heart of it, what is a CV?
To simply it, a CV is basically a small, floating airfield/airbase. By virtue of it being a ship, it automatically has certain advantages and disadvantages. The principal advantages being mobile (to one degree or another) and also not particularly subject to assault and seizure. The disadvantages are that the ship itself can be lost or rendered inoperative, have more restricted air ops due to environment, and not able to safely operate on its own due to potential threats.
Now, for practical ops, a carrier would need to function as part of a battlegroup, typically requiring some form of replenishment ship, as well as screening vessels to provide area air defence, ASW and anti-surface components.
The carrier would need to operate some form of reconnaisance/AEW aircraft, and in sufficient numbers to provide essentially constant coverage. On a side note, while they do not exist yet (at least publically) I would sort of like to see some form of high altitude long endurance dirigible UAV which mounts ESA in paniers/gondolas able to hover over a CBG at 60k-80k ft.
A carrier would also need sufficient aircraft to provide a CAP/CAS capability, again around the clock. This capability is for self-defence, in the event that the CBG ends up being targeted.
The carrier would also need sufficient additional aircraft to provide useful fighter/strike packages.
In determining the numbers of aircraft required for different task, I generally find following a 1:3 or 1:4 ratio appropriate for such situations. So, if there were to be some form of AEW/recon aircraft on constant watch, then at least 3 (4+ would be better) would need to operate from the carrier. Granted if some form of reliable, high endurance UAV were available then the numbers might possibly be cut to as low as just 2, but no lower. For planning purposes I would assume 4 of some type AEW aircraft would operate from the carrier. In terms of the organic CAP, that would need to be organized in flights of 2, with one flight orbiting the CBG. This would then require something like 8 (4 pairs of flights) for CAP, and then perhaps 1-3 additional pairs to provide a hotpad capability as a backup. This is of course assuming that two orbiting pairs was not determined more appropriate for a CBG. Plus any hotpad capability. So far we have hit 8 fighters at a minimum, before creating any strike packages. In terms of useful package generation rates, I would expect that ~10 would be the minimum required to provide a useful capability (again operating in pairs). That number could perhaps be a little fungible if some of the CAP aircraft could have a strike swing role. In point of fact, if the aircraft under discussion for service about the carrier was either the SHornet, or F-35B/C, then the CAP and strike aircraft would be the same type, just the armament could be different depending on mission role. Lastly, in order to have one on constant standby, then the carrier would likely need ~4 medevac/SAR aircraft (likely helicopters).
So in short, I would antipate that the carrier air group would look like this.
4 AEW aircraft of some type or another, rotary wing if operating with F-35B, otherwise fixed wing.
~18 fighter aircraft for both CAP and strike package generation
4 rotary wing medevac/SAR aircraft.
And again, this would be at a minimum to provide a useful capability. Also, the question of whether or not the capabilitty is cost effective is completely different.
-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
So in short, I would antipate that the carrier air group would look like this.
4 AEW aircraft of some type or another, rotary wing if operating with F-35B, otherwise fixed wing.
~18 fighter aircraft for both CAP and strike package generation
4 rotary wing medevac/SAR aircraft.
And again, this would be at a minimum to provide a useful capability. Also, the question of whether or not the capabilitty is cost effective is completely different.
-Cheers
Interesting , In the past there was a (rough and ready) principle of 1 aircraft = 1000 tons of carrier displacement , the increase in aircraft weights however means this ship will likely displace between 30-40k tons .
I can see the attractiveness in delegating all ASW functions to the CV's escorting battle group - with no ASW helo's aboard our hypothetical carrier can obviously accommodate more strike aircraft , This reminds me somewhat of the (WWII) Japanese theory that air reconnaissance should be the responsibility of float planes carried aboard cruisers or battleships , not carrier aircraft .
A problem could arise however if escorting ships were lost or detached for some reason , to maintain 2 or 3 ASW helicopters on constant patrol around the CBG (over a prolonged period) a minimal force of around 10 or 12 S-60B and/or NH90's will be required I'd have thought - drop much below that number and the carrier could become unacceptably vulnerable .
I'd suggest the Medivac , SAR & ASW functions should all be fulfilled by the same type and furthermore the rotary wing complement aboard the carrier should be expanded from 4 to 8 .
It should go without saying this scenario is only relevant in the event of the enemy possessing a viable submarine capability - much the same could be said regarding the need to maintain constant combat air patrols .
Interesting , In the past there was a (rough and ready) principle of 1 aircraft = 1000 tons of carrier displacement , the increase in aircraft weights however means this ship will likely displace between 30-40k tons .
I can see the attractiveness in delegating all ASW functions to the CV's escorting battle group - with no ASW helo's aboard our hypothetical carrier can obviously accommodate more strike aircraft , This reminds me somewhat of the (WWII) Japanese theory that air reconnaissance should be the responsibility of float planes carried aboard cruisers or battleships , not carrier aircraft .
A problem could arise however if escorting ships were lost or detached for some reason , to maintain 2 or 3 ASW helicopters on constant patrol around the CBG (over a prolonged period) a minimal force of around 10 or 12 S-60B and/or NH90's will be required I'd have thought - drop much below that number and the carrier could become unacceptably vulnerable .
I'd suggest the Medivac , SAR & ASW functions should all be fulfilled by the same type and furthermore the rotary wing complement aboard the carrier should be expanded from 4 to 8 .
It should go without saying this scenario is only relevant in the event of the enemy possessing a viable submarine capability - much the same could be said regarding the need to maintain constant combat air patrols .
Within an Australian context, the RAN escort fitout very much would depend on the current and upcoming programmes.
Ideally, a RAN CBG would have the CV, a Hobart-class AWD, and ~2 Anzac-class FFH for ASW, or if the "Anzac II" programme has begun, then 1-2 of those, depending on what other escorts are available in quantities. In addition there would be some form of replenishment ship, the type depending on the timeframe of the CBG being formed. There would also be the potential for anywhere from 1-4 (or more) OCV's being fitted out for escort duty, again depending on the programme status. Additionally, I would expect that at least one Collins or "Collins II" sub would be very much nearby the CBG.
As a practical matter, the Anzac/Anzac II and possibly any OCV's would be the primary ASW screening force, apart from the Collins of course. It would also be beneficial for the CV to also have some ASuW/ASW helicopters embarked. However, I do not expect that the medevac/SAR functions could be combined with the ASW/ASuW roles, unless a version of the NFH-90 enters RAN service. Given the issues the ADF is having with just the MRH-90 and the fact that the NFH-90 has not (to my knowledge) reach IOC with the launch customers yet, I suspect that any RAN NFH-90 orders would be years away, if ever.
-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
I don't see any justification for an Aircraft carrier. For acting within our ragion it is not required as the RAAF should be able to provide any support required, especially with its new Tankers.
Remember, Singapore and Malasia are five powers Allies, Indonesia has less then a squadron of modern fighter that they cannot afford to operate, China and India are too far away to reach us, without tanker support they do not have.
The RAN's Frigates and (and in the future) destroyers now carry their own ASW Helicopters, which they didn't do when Sydney and Melbourne were in service, and if we ever felt the need to increase our Naval ASW Helicopter inventory, the Canberra's could serve as capable platforms for that. And for CAS, we have the tigers.
We do not have the logistics support or amphibious capacity to conduct interregional operations in large enough numbers to justify a fixed wing aircraft carrier that would only be needed in those type of operations.
I don't see any justification for an Aircraft carrier. For acting within our ragion it is not required as the RAAF should be able to provide any support required, especially with its new Tankers.
Remember, Singapore and Malasia are five powers Allies, Indonesia has less then a squadron of modern fighter that they cannot afford to operate, China and India are too far away to reach us, without tanker support they do not have.
The RAN's Frigates and (and in the future) destroyers now carry their own ASW Helicopters, which they didn't do when Sydney and Melbourne were in service, and if we ever felt the need to increase our Naval ASW Helicopter inventory, the Canberra's could serve as capable platforms for that. And for CAS, we have the tigers.
We do not have the logistics support or amphibious capacity to conduct interregional operations in large enough numbers to justify a fixed wing aircraft carrier that would only be needed in those type of operations.
I can see a rationale for the RAN getting back into the carrier "game" however, there are a number of other things which the ADF could and should get or replace prior to getting a carrier. There are enough items that fall into those categories IMO that absent a major long termed sustainable increase in the ADF budget, and/or a major (read: World War) conflict, it will not happen.
The RAAF, especially once the F-35 and assorted standoff weaponry has entered service, will be able to carry out strike missions through much of the local region. However, given the distances involved, the RAAF would not be able to provide air cover if needed, unless airfields can be secured. In case of a need to defend NZ, Malaysia or Singapore, that could be done. If the AoO was further away, or access to those facilities was lost, then ADF forces would be operating with little or no air cover. In such situations (unlikely as they are) carrier-based aircraft would be very useful.
On a side note, assuming that the RAN does not get back into operating a carrier, I would still like to see some form of AEW aircraft enter RAN inventory. This could be a helicopter with an AEW fitout (like the RN Sea King AEW.7/ASaC.7 or the Italian EH101 Mk 112 AEW), or some fixed-wing or rotary UAV. Having something like that would significantly boost the sensor footprint of any RAN force.
-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
So in short, I would antipate that the carrier air group would look like this.
4 AEW aircraft of some type or another, rotary wing if operating with F-35B, otherwise fixed wing.
~18 fighter aircraft for both CAP and strike package generation
4 rotary wing medevac/SAR aircraft.
And again, this would be at a minimum to provide a useful capability. Also, the question of whether or not the capabilitty is cost effective is completely different.
-Cheers
A fleet group without a carrier has 0 hour presence in the air because has no jets, why if you have 18 or whatever number of jets in a ship are going to be forced to use it in the way you say. Under your umbrella you will use your jets whenever is convienient, there is no need for 24 h. in a group protected by an awd, that what you say it will be for one context but there is a big scope of aplications, purposes, where you can use the speed, range, electronics, safeness, weapons of some f35b, above sea or land (even against spy satellites?), if you are goint to do a job with an helo, maybe the advantages of a jet do it better, any job you imagine, offensive or defensive, active or passive, it is a different machine to have in the inventory, regardless the number of machines.
Then if the f35bīs have really a strong electronic warfare kit (jamming and own radar range), with the range of the spy radar, you have a range of altitude from sea level to above up to the line of the spy radar where if the f35bīs faces other inferior electronic jets, then these are lost and maybe in a high rate. Probably these hostile jets can appear above the horizon line of the spy radar without being in danger from the sm2 (recall spy radar goes up to 600 kms) but they will discovered, and if the f35b also is stealth for hostile ship/jets radars....
Depending on how many f35bīs australia hypotetically wanted could buy a bigger or smaller ship, or none ship a put all the money in the 4th awd.
About the long endurance dirigible uav above the fleet its like a mini portable satellite, but much closer to the surface, recall a jet at 10 kms has the horizon at 350 kms, still higher than 10 kms? probably because there are dirigible put almost out of the atmosphere. At the same time they should be protected by the essm or sm2 easily for their range. If you use them from a lhd you might take them out and recover by sea, that is by the dock! Allowing for less dependance of the fligt deck bussiness and all weather landing (in sea) of the uav, at the same time for a bigger size of the inflatable balloon, but it will need to be water resistant.
If the AoO was further away, or access to those facilities was lost, then ADF forces would be operating with little or no air cover. In such situations (unlikely as they are) carrier-based aircraft would be very useful.
Yes, however those would most likely be wars of choice rather then wars of neccessity.
Quote:
On a side note, assuming that the RAN does not get back into operating a carrier, I would still like to see some form of AEW aircraft enter RAN inventory. This could be a helicopter with an AEW fitout (like the RN Sea King AEW.7/ASaC.7 or the Italian EH101 Mk 112 AEW), or some fixed-wing or rotary UAV. Having something like that would significantly boost the sensor footprint of any RAN force.
Agreed, one of the things I like least about the SPY-1 is that due to the weight of the system it has to be Mounted much lower then AESA systems such as Sampson. Resulting in much reduced Range against low level targets.
) could prove to be both relatively cheap & highly capable . 
