I have seen some reference's to the America Class having around the 1 mil mark
A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?
- Thread starter t68
- Start date
- Status
As it has been noted since the first few pages of this thread, the Spanish intend to use the Juan Carlos I as a practice, training carrier for the air wing when the PdA is in its long refit, NOT as her replacement... The Spanish don't intend to use the JCI as a full fledged wartime carrier, if push came to shove, they would prefer to button up the PdA for wartime duties...
But somehow every time its revealed one needs several aircraft to do CAP and CAS duties properly, the carrier advocates drop the requirement down to three or four aircraft for CAS duties... Its like a dog chasing its tail....
Simply put, the Canberra/Juan Carlos I LHDs/BPEs are tightly designed as helicopter borne amphibious assault ships, not as light carriers... Not only is the aviation fuel capacity limited, the weapons bunkerage is just as limited as well... Of course none of us can prove it until those numbers are revealed...
But somehow every time its revealed one needs several aircraft to do CAP and CAS duties properly, the carrier advocates drop the requirement down to three or four aircraft for CAS duties... Its like a dog chasing its tail....
Simply put, the Canberra/Juan Carlos I LHDs/BPEs are tightly designed as helicopter borne amphibious assault ships, not as light carriers... Not only is the aviation fuel capacity limited, the weapons bunkerage is just as limited as well... Of course none of us can prove it until those numbers are revealed...
If it is 900 tonnes then using a mid point density of JP5 of 0.8 that makes 1125 litres. From memory this gives 297193 gallons so this is about 163000 gallons less.The current public listed capacity of the JC1/Canberra Class is 900T of aviation fuel not cubes
Compare that to a Wasp which carries over 460,000 Gallons of JP5 and you get an idea of the difference
Of using the lower density ........ about 240000 galoons as noted above (sorry missed the later posts)
And on that we could operate Melbourne for about a week of intensive ops for the aircraft using AVCAT (F-44); remember half her airgroup (at least), the S2s, used AVGAS. F-44 (NOT JP5) was only used by the A4s and the helos; and is of course the fuel currently used in the Australian context by any embarked turbine aircraft.
when i get a minute ill add in some replenishment ships
Some critical factors to look at though, what is the burn rate of the A4 compared to the B? what were the type of operations carried out by the Melbourne, what types of operations would/could the LHD do ? What logistical support did they have and what would be required of the LHD if you were to try ? what was the strategic and tactical use of the A4 compared to the use of the F35-B's etc etc
Its not just a matter of how much fuel it can carry, or how much you need in the oilers ? it is much much more complex than that. Just because the States run STOVL of their LHD's, Spanish (for limited use which has been pointed out numerous times, UK, Italy etc their force structure and capabilities are very different from ours. We have a long way to go before joining the Carrier club again, but we can keep dreaming though
im having some trouble getting Sirius's figures into gallons (or anything for that matter) the Navy's website lists her as carrying 34,000cz of fuel, but it also states that 1,000 cz = 1,000,000 liters which equals about 9,000,000 gallons.
from sirius's size i must be going wrong somewhere or i could just be going crazy
from sirius's size i must be going wrong somewhere or i could just be going crazy
I used this conversion website link....After filling in the cubic meters I got around 1800 tons... Many tankers are measured in cz, cubic meters....
Cubic Meters to Ton Registers Conversion Calculator
It gets so confusing with long tons, short tons, and metric tons, I don't care for exact accuracy as they are pretty close to one another generally... At least one gets some sort of close comparison...
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
Can but wont....could increase defence drastically but wont rock the interest/lobby financial boat...
It is not one to one. All oils have a density of less than 1 (that is why the float on FW). JP5 os about 0.75 to 0.82 from memory (I could be slightly out). Desnsity makes a massive difference to volume.......... to demonstrate
FW at 1 cubic m equals 1 tonne
SW at 1 cubic m equals 1.025 tonnes
1 cubic metre is a 1000 litres
So
100 tonnes of FW is 100,000 litres
100 tonnes of SW is 97,561 litrs
100 tonnes of JP5 (@rd of 0.8) is 125,000 litres
1 gallon (imperial) = 4.5 litres
1 gallon (US) = 4 liters
Therefore 1,000.000 litres = 222,222 of the gallons we used to use in this country
sorry i should have been clearer, there are 34 thousands in 34,000 so 34 million liters i.e ~9m gallons
anyway i have managed to peg Sirius down at 36400 tonnes of fuel load
The deadweight is a theoretical figure for tankers and was 37432 tonnes before conversion. From this you need to subtract stores and spares, ships fuel, crew and provision, water and the weight of the gantry, associated pipe work, additional decks and helo deck
Perhaps the revised DWT is 36400 but that does not translate to 36400 tonnes of fuel available (see below).
You would be better looking at tank volume and mass is depended on density. The Navy indicate a displacement (summer draft) of 25016.53 tonnes meaning there is no possible way the ship can uplift 36400 tonnes of fuel.
From memory she has a cubic capacity of about 35000 cubic metres. If she carried FW then she would max out on mass (hit her load line limit) before being full. If she carried light oils (rd 0.75) then you still would not fill her, however there is always a need for ullage at the top of the tanks to allow for expansion.
i was just quoting what BAE said in their post conversion brief.
http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/public/documents/bae_publication/bae_aus_pdf_maritime_aor_conv.pdf
Under the five powers defence agreement (which the Conservatives are looking to reignite), I'm sure the UK would commit a QE to the defence of the region as long as Europe is not simultaneously threatened. Assuming both the RAAF and RAF/FAA are both flying F35's, there is no reason why, through the existing long look programme, that RAAF pilots wouldn't be able to fly off a QE class (using UK airframes) as part of a much larger ARG, which would include a Canberra class (helo role) supported by a mix of RN/RAN DDG's.
The fact that the UK Commando's and Aus Commando's are twined and will continue to exchange personnel should further enhance cooperation. They both have to operate under similar conditions relying on purple assets as operational enablers.
Hopefully when the first QE is operational they will undertake a fly-the-flag tour and carry-out maritime exercises with both the US and Aus military. The same way ARK took part in a MANTF deployment before she was scrapped.
The fact that the QE is lean manned and reliant on a high degree of automation (weapons / munition handling), which if successfully implemented may encourage Aus strategic thinkers to consider a strike carrier down the line, particularly if the maths and manning numbers are achievable.
I would like to see a five powers exercise in Asia post 2020 comprising:
1 x QE
1 x Canberra
1 x Canterbury
1 x Albion
1 x Bay
4 x RAN/RN DDG's
2 x Singapore Formidable Class Frigates + Malaysian Maritime Assets..
1 x Challenger, 1 x Collins and 1 x Astute
RFA's
Interesting that the RAN site and the info from the ship as delos does not match up, however, as noted volume not tonnage is your capacity unless you quote for a particular density
The military uses displacement tons affixed to ships, whereas the civilian world uses a formula of volume affixed to ships, two different concepts entirely...
It would be interesting to see an image of Cunard's Queen Mary 2 of 150k tons vs a US Navy Nimitz class aircraft carrier of 100k tons... In the image I suspect the Nimitz will look larger or as large as the Queen Mary 2...
- Status