A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[harryriedl]

The Midway class tells a different story. They were constantly upgraded and modified to use newer and heavier aircraft (except the F-14).

The midways are different in my eyes compared with the UK conversions as they were very large by world war 2 standards, the UK conversions were marginal at best from a very early on and all very different with very little standardization. With conversions of varying standards from advanced to obsolescent dependent on money and time period another problem known with the WW2 carriers was the use of substandard steel especially with the wartime builds which was another reason for prompting the replacement of some ships early other than the dire fiscal situations.

Though the 1960s fleet looks impressive virtually each ship is completely different which is frankly stupid 5 different classed(with two largely in forgine ownership) with some vessels with some equimpent which others didn't have. For example the electrical systems of the ships by the late 50s the RN moves over to AC from DC which it has used since the late 1900s but their are many wartime carriers still on DC which makes power-supply marginal at best so some are converted completely to AC Victorious,Eagle and Hermes get the full conversion but the expense is too much for the rest of the fleet so. The rest solider on until it gets so desperate that some are fitted with Hybrid systems which are cheaper but again not all have the conversions its the same with all most all the other aspects of the carriers. Once they saw the cost of modifications they should have gone new build.

Im not denying that they had very good service and before the cost of the modifications were know it looked sensible

Besides the midways were horrid sea boats at the end of life with very little seaboard and a vicious roll neither are ideal for F-18 Ops. The US conversions I like much better as they were largely to similar standards and had much better margins plus their were supercarriers being built so it wasn't an either or situation which the RN had.

 

[swerve]

The GG is a old and very tiny carrier. I think only the Thai carrier rivals it for size.

The f-35b is approximately the same size as a harrier so people assume it can physically fit then all is ok. Its what 100-200% heavier. Lifts would need to be upgraded, decks strengthend etc. All of this at the top of a ship, you can't just increase the mass of live loads several times and not have an impact on the stability of the ship (although the GG is a small enclosed sea carrier).

Fuel load is way larger. While the GG could operate a airwing of 6 harriers, the F-35B will chew that fuel with a single aircraft. The ship does not have lots of free space, I don't know how it could be upgraded to do anything useful with a F-35.

They may keep it around as a training carrier, helo carrier etc. However it would be very limited as a F-35B carrier.

Yup.

GG is the second smallest Harrier carrier built. Chakri Naruebet is the smallest.

F-35B is only a little longer, wider & taller than a Harrier (> 1 metre x >1 m x ca 0.75 m extra compared to the AV-8B+, which is the biggest Harrier), but twice as heavy, both empty & loaded.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deck length isn't a constraint. F-35B designed to take off with 550 ft (165m deck length). Even the Chakri's deck is longer than that.

Fuel is a consideration. Sea Harrier/AV-8B = 5000/7750lbs (770/1200)gal internal fuel. F-35B = 14000 lbs (2160 gal).

For existing carriers like Invincible (250000 gal), there's still more than enough for ops. (18 x 3 sorties x 2160 = 117k gal a day). Worse case scenario, bring a fuel tender/tanker along to refuel aviation gas every day.

Same thing applies for munitions and spares.

 

[riksavage]

The critical factor is sortie rates, no point even considering placing F35B's on an LHD/LHP unless you can sustain a credible CAP/CAS presence aloft, otherwise you are simply adding to the pain and loss should the ship be sunk.

Both the RN and USMC have spent a great deal of time calculating the minimum amount of airframes and support to ensure F35B 24-7 coverage over the fleet/beachhead. In the case of the USMC they ended up with a Wasp/America class, the RN a QE class.

The Invincible class, though not designed from day one to carry Harrier, ended up being just about the absolute minimum size capable of hosting a credible CAP able to provide 24-7 coverage in time of conflict (three jets aloft at any one time). So based on the three rule, your vessel needs to be able to host at least nine jets to allow for maintenance, bombing-up and transit to and from your aerial patrol box. You could srink this number to two aloft at a bare minimum, but they will all ways end up flying as a pair, so your options are limited. Ideally you want at least two flights of two allowing for a greater area of coverage bringing the total number of airframes carried to twelve.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Required sortie rates are halved with the F-35B.

Harriers can fly at most 40-60 min CAPs. F-35Bs (with double internal fuel) doubles that time in air.

Harriers would need double the sorties to maintain continuous CAP as compared to the F-35Bs. Haven't even factored in more fuel is spent taking off and landing for each sortie.

 

[Moonstone]

Required sortie rates are halved with the F-35B.

Harriers can fly at most 40-60 min CAPs. F-35Bs (with double internal fuel) doubles that time in air.

Harriers would need double the sorties to maintain continuous CAP as compared to the F-35Bs. Haven't even factored in more fuel is spent taking off and landing for each sortie.

Talking about the necessity for continuous combat air patrols in the era of the AWACS aircraft & Aegis equipped destroyer sounds like you're planning on refighting the Battle of Midway (or the Falklands) with 21st century forces . In the era of asymmetrical warfare in reality very few potential enemies can field the technologically sophisticated air-power needed to penetrate the screen put up by your new AWD/ 'Hobart' class . I'd suggest modern carrier air groups are more likely to find themselves engaged in the offensive role rather than in maintaining continuous CAPS - at least in the traditional sense of the term 'CAP' .

The very real threat modern SSK's pose to a carrier /amphibious task force (and its vital logistical train) on the other hand must be taken seriously .

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Talking about the necessity for continuous combat air patrols in the era of the AWACS aircraft & Aegis equipped destroyer sounds like you're planning on refighting the Battle of Midway (or the Falklands) with 21st century forces . In the era of asymmetrical warfare in reality very few potential enemies can field the technologically sophisticated air-power needed to penetrate the screen put up by your new AWD/ 'Hobart' class . I'd suggest modern carrier air groups are more likely to find themselves engaged in the offensive role rather than in maintaining continuous CAPS - at least in the traditional sense of the term 'CAP' .

The very real threat modern SSK's pose to a carrier /amphibious task force (and its vital logistical train) on the other hand must be taken seriously .

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).

 

[riksavage]

The critical factor is sortie rates, no point even considering placing F35B's on an LHD/LHP unless you can sustain a credible CAP/CAS presence aloft, otherwise you are simply adding to the pain and loss should the ship be sunk.

Both the RN and USMC have spent a great deal of time calculating the minimum amount of airframes and support to ensure F35B 24-7 coverage over the fleet/beachhead. In the case of the USMC they ended up with a Wasp/America class, the RN a QE class.

The Invincible class, though not designed from day one to carry Harrier, ended up being just about the absolute minimum size capable of hosting a credible CAP able to provide 24-7 coverage in time of conflict (three jets aloft at any one time). So based on the three rule, your vessel needs to be able to host at least nine jets to allow for maintenance, bombing-up and transit to and from your aerial patrol box. You could srink this number to two aloft at a bare minimum, but they will all ways end up flying as a pair, so your options are limited. Ideally you want at least two flights of two allowing for a greater area of coverage bringing the total number of airframes carried to twelve.

OK, say we don't need constant CAP, we might however need constant CAS on call (as with A-Stan), particularly against a failed or rogue state where your beachhead is coming under constant attack from fairly unsophisticated technology (anything from T55's, RPG's, recoilless rifles to 81-120mm mortars dug-in).

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Then one doesn't need a CV.

Afghanistan is 500-1000km inland. Forward base the F-35Bs to do CAS. Send the CV home.

 

[StevoJH]

Then one doesn't need a CV.

Afghanistan is 500-1000km inland. Forward base the F-35Bs to do CAS. Send the CV home.

Send in the CV with your landing force. Once an airbase is ashore, you *might* be able to then redeploy the aircraft ashore.

Assuming the Airbase is in good enough condition, assuming that logistics can support an ashore air base.....assuming quite a lot of things....

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Its reality rather than assumption.

Field Report: British GR7 Harrier IIs in Afghanistan

FOXNews.com - Marine Harrier Jets Pound Kandahar Area - U.S. & World

 

[StevoJH]

Its reality rather than assumption.

Field Report: British GR7 Harrier IIs in Afghanistan

FOXNews.com - Marine Harrier Jets Pound Kandahar Area - U.S. & World

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.

btw, are you the Weasel from T5C?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Sorry mate, different guy.

The Harriers were there 5 years (2004 - 26 Jun 2009).

RAF - Harrier ForceHarrier Force

Every harrier pilot in every RAF sqn have taken part. 22000 hours in 8500+ sorties.

USMC harriers still there (after 6 yrs in Iraq).

Can't take that away.

 

[Moonstone]

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 .

Yes I know this is all completely hypothetical .

 

[agc33e]

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 uav´s.
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 f35b´s and without skyjump.

Cheers.

 

[gf0012-aust]

btw, are you the Weasel from T5C?

No he's not, different country - and I've worked with Weasel from T5C on different weapons/tech projects

 

[gf0012-aust]

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

 

[weasel1962]

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.

 

[Todjaeger]

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

 

[Moonstone]

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 .