A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[ngatimozart]

Why go for a CATOBAR carrier which is expensive? Eurofighter are developing a navalised version of the Typhoon which does not need major mods to the airframe, already has a hook installed and the present versions have the power to do a full fuel full weapons load take off from a ski ramp equipped carrier. They intend to fit thrust vectoring to the aircraft to help with carrier landing and will strengthen the arrestor hook area. Eurofighter have done the specs for a go at the Indian Navy carrier aircraft contract. Also the Typhoon is a true multi role aircraft which is lighter and quicker than any variant of the Super Hornet. Just something to throw into the mix.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Also the Typhoon is a true multi role aircraft which is lighter and quicker than any variant of the Super Hornet. Just something to throw into the mix.

the advantages of the Shornet are more than just a platform performance issue

eg
interoperability
doctrine similarity and cross training
access to USN developments
extant FMS arrangements in place, so no extra negotiation required
piggy back off USN developments
related tech sharing agreements
related tech transfer agreements
common weapons fit outs so no recertification needed for a large proportion of the avail weapons suite
far more embeds on both sides of the pacific

we don't just get a plane - we get a system and we get leverage off everything that the USN has done to date.

Australia has a very very very (emphasis on very) close relationship with PACOM across all the services, far stronger than any other country to country relationship. Arguably, PACOM are the US as far as Aust is basically concerned.

 

[ngatimozart]

the advantages of the Shornet are more than just a platform performance issue

eg
interoperability
doctrine similarity and cross training
access to USN developments
extant FMS arrangements in place, so no extra negotiation required
piggy back off USN developments
related tech sharing agreements
related tech transfer agreements
common weapons fit outs so no recertification needed for a large proportion of the avail weapons suite
far more embeds on both sides of the pacific

we don't just get a plane - we get a system and we get leverage off everything that the USN has done to date.

Australia has a very very very (emphasis on very) close relationship with PACOM across all the services, far stronger than any other country to country relationship. Arguably, PACOM are the US as far as Aust is basically concerned.

Ok I can see it from that point. I was looking at from more of the angle of more bang for buck. It is very expensive to get into any CV ops and CATOBAR adds extra cost as against ski jumps STVOL. I did think of the F35B but the RN decided against it because of less capability than Harrier. My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is this.

If Australia is really serious about getting back into carrier ops, it should put a bid in for the Prince of Wales or for construction of a sister ship at same time as QE. There are good financial reasons for doing so at the moment. Things like exchange rates and the fact that the Australian economy is in far better condition than the British economy. My thinking is that because of the Brits financial strife they would be amenable to such an approach and that Australia could get a good price. The Super Hornet has had a new upgrade for the Indian MMRCA competition so when the RAAF F35's come online the RAAF Super Hornets could either be traded in for new ones or upgraded themselves. The RAN would have time to train aircrews and this could be done in conjunction with the USN. So by the time the QE class Carrier arrives the RAN has a complete air wing up, running and fully operational.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Ok I can see it from that point. I was looking at from more of the angle of more bang for buck.

ah, but thats the thing, bang for buck, we get far greater access and to far more many things from PACOM (let alone the rest of the US Armed Forces) than we could ever hope to get from the UK. Its almost immeasurable..

If Australia is really serious about getting back into carrier ops, it should put a bid in for the Prince of Wales or for construction of a sister ship at same time as QE. There are good financial reasons for doing so at the moment. Things like exchange rates and that the Australian economy is in far better condition than the British economy.

we have to fix up 25 years of Labor/Liberal mismanagement of the ADF (let alone RAN) before we could even think about getting back into a fixed wing combat FAA environment.

I'm not a fan of STOL fixed wing jumpers/lurchers as the data for deploying, time and weight of ord on target is a whole lot better for CATOBARS

Also the Super Hornet has had a new upgrade for the Indian MMRCA competition so when the RAAF F35's come online the Super Hornets could either be traded in for new ones or upgraded themselves. The RAN would have time to train aircrews and this could be done in conjunction with the USN. So by the time the QE Carrier arrives the RAN has a complete air wing up, running and fully operational.

All things being equal, if we could get the same advantages that come with buying US gear that come "naturally" with the SHornet, but for the Typhoon, then I'd buy the Typhoon.

The problem is that the UK can't even remotely approach what the US provides us across the full capability spectrum (air, land, sea, science, space, xxxINT, training, interoperability, facilities, embeds etc....)

I'm a fan of the Typhoon, it's just a damn shame that the US don't license build it and do a Harrier...

 

[alexsa]

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...

Not strictly true. Displacement is used in both as it is an essential element of any stability calculation where is gives the actual tonnage (in water) displaced by the ship at a given draft.

The only difference is the military use the design loaded draft displacement to describe the ships size. Commercial ships use a range of tonnages (both actual and .measured) for the pursose of descibing a ships capacity and for port charges and navigation lveies, Common are Gross, Net and DWT. There is also Panama Tonnage and Suez Tonnage.

 

[ngatimozart]

ah, but thats the thing, bang for buck, we get far greater access and to far more many things from PACOM (let alone the rest of the US Armed Forces) than we could ever hope to get from the UK. Its almost immeasurable..




we have to fix up 25 years of Labor/Liberal mismanagement of the ADF (let alone RAN) before we could even think about getting back into a fixed wing combat FAA environment.

I'm not a fan of STOL fixed wing jumpers/lurchers as the data for deploying, time and weight of ord on target is a whole lot better for CATOBARS



All things being equal, if we could get the same advantages that come with buying US gear that come "naturally" with the SHornet, but for the Typhoon, then I'd buy the Typhoon.

The problem is that the UK can't even remotely approach what the US provides us across the full capability spectrum (air, land, sea, science, space, xxxINT, training, interoperability, facilities, embeds etc....)

I'm a fan of the Typhoon, it's just a damn shame that the US don't license build it and do a Harrier...

Yeah you had similar problems to NZDF but a lot less damage to defence structures and assets by political shenanigans that went on here. But all I was suggesting was buying the carrier and then outfitting the carrier wing to USN standards. In fact you could buy the hull plus the power plants, drive train, necessary electrical systems to make it seaworthy and do all the electronic fit outs to USN standards taking advantage if that close relationship.

Personally I think the Typhoon with a ski jump is the far better option for reasons outlined in an earlier post. I think it would be the ideal aircraft for the RNZAF especially with the vector thrust ability. The US Marine Corp fly the AV8B and that was built under license by McDonnell Douglas in the US, but they got taken over by Boeing so I don't think the AV8 is being manufactured anymore.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The US Marine Corp fly the AV8B and that was built under license by McDonnell Douglas in the US, but they got taken over by Boeing so I don't think the AV8 is being manufactured anymore.

loss in translation by my last cryptic comment...

I meant that if the US decided to build the Typhoon under license like they did with the Harrier, then that would be much much more attractive.

It means that the US would be paying for weapons accreditation, sub systems integration, the NCW related integration etc and we could piggy back off it.

I didn't mean that we get the AV8...

 

[ngatimozart]

loss in translation by my last cryptic comment...

I meant that if the US decided to build the Typhoon under license like they did with the Harrier, then that would be much much more attractive.

It means that the US would be paying for weapons accreditation, sub systems integration, the NCW related integration etc and we could piggy back off it.

I didn't mean that we get the AV8...

That's true. Very inconsiderate of them not to do so. But keep an eye on it because I think Eurofighter are very keen on navalising it so maybe the French might look at it for a Rafale replacement or the Spanish or Italians because I think they already have ski jump carrier. I also think that despite the close relationship India has with Russia, the only fixed wing operational Russian carrier aircraft was the Forger. I know they have navalised the the MiG 29 Fulcrum and that India operates MiGs but the capabilities of a Typhoon vs a Fulcrum are enormous just in the power to weight ratio difference alone and the fact that the Typhoon is fully MMRCA & can do a full fuel and weapons load takeoff from a standing start on a ski jump without an assist would have to be appealing to the Indians.

 

[RubiconNZ]

But keep an eye on it because I think Eurofighter are very keen on navalising it so maybe the French might look at it for a Rafale replacement or the Spanish or Italians because I think they already have ski jump carrier.

Should by chance the JSF STOVL doesn't go ahead which I have every belief it will, Eurofighter are positioning them self very well to by pitching this to the Indians now and developing the concept with the potential of a sale to Spain and India down the line. I was quite surprised but impressed by the development.

The French will keep the Rafale, the are still building them and have the Tranche 4 with AESA is just coming of the line now, no chance of them going the Eurofighter, mainly because they don't need it and also because it would be a tremendous waste of developmental funds. Most are brand new and the rest will be upgraded so I think they will stick with them AFAIK they are perfectly good aircraft though a lack of an export nation has to hurt a little bit.

 

[RubiconNZ]

ah, but thats the thing, bang for buck, we get far greater access and to far more many things from PACOM (let alone the rest of the US Armed Forces) than we could ever hope to get from the UK. Its almost immeasurable..

The problem is that the UK can't even remotely approach what the US provides us across the full capability spectrum (air, land, sea, science, space, xxxINT, training, interoperability, facilities, embeds etc....)

I'm a fan of the Typhoon, it's just a damn shame that the US don't license build it and do a Harrier...

I find this a very interesting concept, Australia's or the ADF's relationship with PACOM being greater than Country to Country, to be honest thinking of the relationship in this way is fascinating to me, is their anything you could point me to the way in public reading material that would discuss this.

Well not trying to simply it to start with I imagine this would be a relationship that has deeply embedded wartime historical influences coupled with continued exercises and training, in addition to strategic similarities and priorities all of which are of course interrelated.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The French will keep the Rafale, the are still building them and have the Tranche 4 with AESA is just coming of the line now

Nope, not until 2013. They have an operational CTD

 

[gf0012-aust]

I find this a very interesting concept, Australia's or the ADF's relationship with PACOM being greater than Country to Country, to be honest thinking of the relationship in this way is fascinating to me, is their anything you could point me to the way in public reading material that would discuss this.

I'm not aware of anything being in the public domain, but its pretty apparent at the worker bee level as well as the executive that there are very very strong links.

The speed of the Shornet acquisition and how it was assisted is a good example of this though.

USN freed up their own slots to assist, and provided RAAF with access way above what would normally be done

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The US Marine Corp fly the AV8B and that was built under license by McDonnell Douglas in the US, but they got taken over by Boeing so I don't think the AV8 is being manufactured anymore.

Not quite true. McAir (McDonnell Aircraft part of McDonnell Douglas) built the Hawker Harrier under license as the AV-8A then developed with BAe (which was formed by a Hawker- BAC merger) the AV-8B - 2nd generation Harrier with new wing and a raft of other changes. McAir merged with Boeing but that didn't close down any capability. The AV-8B line is however closed.

I very much doubt you will ever see a navalised Typhoon. If the F-35B is cancelled which is extremely unlikely then there will probably be a new US STOVL program to replace the AV-8B. Just a smaller, lighter aircraft.

 

[Volkodav]

loss in translation by my last cryptic comment...

I meant that if the US decided to build the Typhoon under license like they did with the Harrier, then that would be much much more attractive.

It means that the US would be paying for weapons accreditation, sub systems integration, the NCW related integration etc and we could piggy back off it.

I didn't mean that we get the AV8...

Thats an interesting concept, I recall a USAF General (I believe it was Jumper), having flown both the F-22 and the Typhoon, had a very high opinion of the Typhoon but made it very clear that they were different aircraft built to different concepts for different roles. It could also be argued that the Typhoon is very different to the F-35 in concept and role.

I know its a bit of a stretch, but could it be argued that the F-22, F-35 and Typhoon could be and are in fact complimentary? Could licence production of the Typhoon in the US be justified, especially in a navalised variant to supplement and complement the F-35 and F-22?

 

[SASWanabe]

i think we would more likely see a block III Shornet in USN service before we see a typhoon.

on that note has anyone heard of any interest from the RAAF on the block IIIs?

 

[Sea Toby]

Thats an interesting concept, I recall a USAF General (I believe it was Jumper), having flown both the F-22 and the Typhoon, had a very high opinion of the Typhoon but made it very clear that they were different aircraft built to different concepts for different roles. It could also be argued that the Typhoon is very different to the F-35 in concept and role.

I know its a bit of a stretch, but could it be argued that the F-22, F-35 and Typhoon could be and are in fact complimentary? Could licence production of the Typhoon in the US be justified, especially in a navalised variant to supplement and complement the F-35 and F-22?

I don't follow the logic. Why would Lockheed Martin or Boeing wish to do a license production of the Typhoon when they have other aircraft to sell? And why would the Congress ever buy an aircraft when most of the parts of the Typhoon are European?

Boeing is the big bad gorilla in the US. Boeing has a wonderful naval aircraft named the Super Hornet...

 

[Bonza]

I know its a bit of a stretch, but could it be argued that the F-22, F-35 and Typhoon could be and are in fact complimentary? Could licence production of the Typhoon in the US be justified, especially in a navalised variant to supplement and complement the F-35 and F-22?

Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to use a combination of Super Hornets, F-35, F-22, and modernised F-15s? I can't see how Typhoon production could be justified in the US considering Boeing still has F-15 production up and running and is incorporating advanced technologies into recent models. The Eurofighter might have a few performance advantages over the F-15 but the older fighter certainly is no slouch, and has an already established familiarity and logistics chain within the USAF.

Carrier aircraft-wise I doubt the combination of Super Hornet, F-35C and eventually whatever emerges from the J-UCAS program (X-47B had its first flight the other day, very interesting) will leave much logic/room for a navalised Typhoon... I could be wrong but it seems like it'd be a lot of time and effort for not much benefit.

Just my thoughts anyway.

 

[ngatimozart]

I don't follow the logic. Why would Lockheed Martin or Boeing wish to do a license production of the Typhoon when they have other aircraft to sell? And why would the Congress ever buy an aircraft when most of the parts of the Typhoon are European?

Boeing is the big bad gorilla in the US. Boeing has a wonderful naval aircraft named the Super Hornet...

I agree. No way would the Typhoon be license built in the US. Just look at all the performance over the KC135 replacement between EADS and Boeing. The projected navalised Typhoon is at present been aimed at India. Also it is not designed for a CATOBAR carrier which all USN carriers are. Also I don't think the F15 would make for a good carrier conversion because it would probably need major mods and why do it when like you say the F18 is available

 

[Bonza]

Also I don't think the F15 would make for a good carrier conversion because it would probably need major mods and why do it when like you say the F18 is available

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear - I was referring to US platforms broadly when I meant to say that, with the USAF using F-15s and USN using Super Hornets, there seems little need for the Eurofighter in either service. Agree with you in that an F-15 carrier conversion would be pointless.

 

[Volkodav]

I can assure you that there is little if any logic in my post, I was just taking the lead from gf's earlier comments. Even if the Typhoon was the only option for the US they would still find a way to avoid buying it, too much national pride at stake.

That said, considering the strike orientation of the F-35, the limited numbers of F-22 in service, the aging of legacy platforms (F-15, F-16) and the comparatively large numbers of Typhoons entering service around the world, the USAF and USN could well find themselves complemented by allied Typhoons.

The Typhoon is a very good replacement for the likes of the F-15, F-16, F-18, etc a gap that has not yet been filled in the US.