This is done and dusted
no more OT chat and time to get back to the topic.
no more OT chat and time to get back to the topic.
A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?
- Thread starter t68
- Start date
- Status
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I do not wish this to become a diatribe on the current state of US politics. Having said that though, there are several things I feel need to be pointed out regarding US politics and their potential impact on programmes like the F-35.
For starters, the "Tea Party" movement is a segment of the US political sphere, it is by no means a major element, though as per the norm, it does like to cast itself as a major part of US politics, by "representing" the silent majority. The movement is not the first one to do so, and will most likely not be the last to make such a claim either.
"Tea Party" members did manage a number of upset wins, generally in Republican primaries, which in turn lead to some "Tea Party" members becoming the Republican candidates for various elected posts in the last election cycle. As such, "Tea Party" members constitute a significant percentage of the Republican members of Congress, but the majority of Republicans in Congress as not "Tea Party" members. Additionally, while the Republicans do have a majority within the House of Representatives, the Democrats have a majority in the Senate. IMO the most likely outcome with the inclusion of "Tea Party" members in Congress is likely to be more voting and legislative gridlock, not the swift passage of bills. I believe this because the "Tea Party" members, while nominally Republican for the most part, appear to be a rather fractious lot, particularly in with their relationship to Republican leadership in Congress. Also, given where some of the taxation and spending policies are for "Tea Party" members, as well as ordinary Republicans and Democrats, I do not really seeing any quick or easy compromise on spending issues, including those impacting defence spending.
Now, to deal specifically with the F-35 programme, and more specifically with the F136 engine. That (the F136 engine) is a programme which the Pentagon has been attempting to terminate since ~2007 since there is no need or advantage to having a second engine as an alternative to the P&W F135 engine. The Pentagon, under a Republican present, was attempting to terminate the development programme to reduce the costs of the F-35 development, as well as saving funding both short and long-term. The reason why the programme has not been terminated yet, is because some members of Congress keep voting additional funding for it (IIRC ~US$450 mil. pa) despite the lack of interest from the military. Given the current budgetary concerns, as well as the lack of any real benefit to having an alternate engine, and event more significantly how much more development (in time and funding) is required before the F136 engine would be ready, the program is ripe for cutting.
At present, the only people who really stand to benefit from the F136 engine programme are the people involved with designing and manufacturing it, and then from there the people who make money providing the GE plant personnel goods and services. If there was to be a 'real' effort to make the engine contract competitive, it would IMO opinion make a good deal more sense to let P&W and GE submit bids as to which company can manufacture the F135 engine at a lower cost. Or, have the GE plant co-manufacture the F-135 engine, this would keep the GE plant workers employed, without the need to waste money developing an engine which is behind schedule and provides no significant difference in performance.
-Cheers
EDIT: D'Oh! I started my comments re: F136 programme before GF completed his comment about remaining On Topic. Oops.
Last edited:
If we are getting back on topic I believe this (below) was one of the last serious questions and one I think we should look into as it is worth going over why we actually need a carrier and the benefits of it etc...
i think the best reason to have a carrier is as a deterant, having a carrier 200 miles off your coastline sure gives you something to consider.
A carrier isnt fixed, it can move hundreds of miles a day, it also means we can contribute to international operations more readily, rather than just the south west pacific. it removes vulnerable tankers from the equation.
the list goes on, i cant think of any reason in the near future why we would need one tho.
A carrier isnt fixed, it can move hundreds of miles a day, it also means we can contribute to international operations more readily, rather than just the south west pacific. it removes vulnerable tankers from the equation.
the list goes on, i cant think of any reason in the near future why we would need one tho.
I sorta agree with you here except for the fact that as a deterrent an Aussie carrier wouldn't be that formidable as it would most likely only be a light carrier unfortunately.
true but, 12-18 aircraft, especially F-35 would be a formidable force to all but the most advanced militarys.
Imagine a conflict somewhere, not only in the pacific region where australian forces are deployed, and there hostiles forces waiting to attack facilities, convoys, patrolling forces, etc, then imagine an attack on something and:
-if you already have a couple of F35 in air in the moment of the attack, you send the jet over the hot zone, as it is already in air in a minute it will be over the hot zone, and identifies the elements in the attack, the jet is been
told what hostile vehicles left the attack and so identifies them and track them enough for ground forces and helos to be directed against them..etc.
-if you just have helos, you wont be in "a minute" over the hot zone, and maybe it wont arrive to identify the hostile vehicles and wont be possible to direct the ground forces.
Is it possible that difference between the jet and the helo? Yes compared speed of 200 kms/h with 1200 kms/h, compared the range of 200 kms with 600 kms for example, so that with an helo you can asisst just like 100 kms away from the ship because the helo has to return to refuel (+2 hours endurance) while the jet can assist at 400 kms away from the ship (and even with external tanks maybe 4 hours endurance). Will ever Australian or allied forces want to go further inland? Is potential.
F35b or c? Is other thing.
-if you already have a couple of F35 in air in the moment of the attack, you send the jet over the hot zone, as it is already in air in a minute it will be over the hot zone, and identifies the elements in the attack, the jet is been
told what hostile vehicles left the attack and so identifies them and track them enough for ground forces and helos to be directed against them..etc.
-if you just have helos, you wont be in "a minute" over the hot zone, and maybe it wont arrive to identify the hostile vehicles and wont be possible to direct the ground forces.
Is it possible that difference between the jet and the helo? Yes compared speed of 200 kms/h with 1200 kms/h, compared the range of 200 kms with 600 kms for example, so that with an helo you can asisst just like 100 kms away from the ship because the helo has to return to refuel (+2 hours endurance) while the jet can assist at 400 kms away from the ship (and even with external tanks maybe 4 hours endurance). Will ever Australian or allied forces want to go further inland? Is potential.
F35b or c? Is other thing.
a little bit of reality is needed here
fast jets DON'T do FAC
doctrine doesn't support jets doing battlefield C2 - thats the command assets role
all aircraft are under the command of the C2 asset in theatre - ie the fatship - if the C2 asset can't "see" them electronically then they can;t and won't be deployed beyond LOS - welcome to the current Tiger problems.
NOTE
this thread is seriously hitting the point where it needs administrative euthenasia.
it needs to pick up and get out of wally world real soon...
Aussienscale asked for potential situations that could make the Ran change the doctrine to adopt jets.
I don´t understand the term "FAC", but i understand that you say jets don´t do C2 in battlefield, or that ranges are out of the electronics of the fatship. But F35 have satcom and of course radio comm and datalink, and the Awd has the Spy with 600 kms range. And is a jet specially for the conjunction of info and easy for the pilot. With external tanks probably 4 hours endurance almost twice an helo, which gives flexibility.
That battlefield can be a low med intensity scenarios anyway, and that is what i was seeking to say, actually in today´s deployement Ran´s perspective´some jets can help.
And for sea its the same, your helo won´t arrive to catch the pirate boat that is 400 kms away of the fatship, because is 200 kms/h speed, while the jet will do it and identify the pirates and with the 4 hour endurance even it will track it into land and photograph the people.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
FAC = Forward Air Controller
AEGIS only works out to the horizon, it also cannot see through mountains. So even if it can theoretically see out to 600km, at that range it could only spot targets at a fairly high altitude due to the curvature of the earth.
External tanks remove the advantage of Stealth. In addition, with only 8-12 Aircraft (which would reduce the helicopter and troop levels significantly) only probably 2 aircraft could be in the air at a time if you kept a 24/7 CAP up. This would also leave minimal ability to reinforce the airborne aircraft if required.
Of course if you did this the ship would be almost constantly alongside a replenishment ship unless alternate arrangements are made for fuel and weapons storage, arrangements that would further limit the already reduced troop carrying capacity of the ships.
Pretty soon you'll have ships that carry a small number of F-35's, a small number of troops and are incapable of carrying out the role they are being carried to fullfill.
Tanker and AEW&C supported landbased F-35 and F-18F should be able to provide any Aircover required by the RAN within our region. Outside of our region we do not and will not in the near future have the capacity to operate in a war without the outside aid of a major ally such as the united states. The purchase of a couple of dozen F-35B's would be unlikely to change the equation.
Using an F-35B to track pirates would be massive overkill. Using small unmanned long endurance UAV's launched from the Ski Jump would be much more likely.
AEGIS only works out to the horizon, it also cannot see through mountains. So even if it can theoretically see out to 600km, at that range it could only spot targets at a fairly high altitude due to the curvature of the earth.
External tanks remove the advantage of Stealth. In addition, with only 8-12 Aircraft (which would reduce the helicopter and troop levels significantly) only probably 2 aircraft could be in the air at a time if you kept a 24/7 CAP up. This would also leave minimal ability to reinforce the airborne aircraft if required.
Of course if you did this the ship would be almost constantly alongside a replenishment ship unless alternate arrangements are made for fuel and weapons storage, arrangements that would further limit the already reduced troop carrying capacity of the ships.
Pretty soon you'll have ships that carry a small number of F-35's, a small number of troops and are incapable of carrying out the role they are being carried to fullfill.
Tanker and AEW&C supported landbased F-35 and F-18F should be able to provide any Aircover required by the RAN within our region. Outside of our region we do not and will not in the near future have the capacity to operate in a war without the outside aid of a major ally such as the united states. The purchase of a couple of dozen F-35B's would be unlikely to change the equation.
Using an F-35B to track pirates would be massive overkill. Using small unmanned long endurance UAV's launched from the Ski Jump would be much more likely.
In the big overall picture, Australia has a significant land-sea-air gap surrounding their island continent... The narrowest gap is with Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, the north... Australia's defense should and does concentrate on defending that land-sea-air gap... Probably the largest threat to that land-air-sea gap is the growth of long range ballistic missiles....
I don't see a few aircraft of the B version of the JSF as being of much use in defending a threat from long range ballistic missiles, much less the land-sea-air gap... Priorities lie elsewhere...
I don't see a few aircraft of the B version of the JSF as being of much use in defending a threat from long range ballistic missiles, much less the land-sea-air gap... Priorities lie elsewhere...
The same curvature applies for the radio comm, but not for the Satcom.
Maybe you don´t need a 24/7 presence, but 12 hours out of 24 per day, or maybe just need to have a jet runway free permanently for inmediate launches when needed instead having it all the 12 or 24 hours in air.
Well the air complement crew for the Canberras in helo carrier mode it was like 170-200 people, together with the sailors that are like 250, and still have room for +900 soldiers, and some flag staff.
Those 170-200 air crew is distributed along what it carries, the more helos you carry the more crew, you´ve need crew for helos as you do for jets and probably in similar numbers or even more crew attached to the helos than jets need (more pilots, more asw/aew operators).
Important: If the hypothetical light aircraft carrier was to be a moded Canberra, it has room for spares, it has room for maintance upto level 2 (?!) and it has also the whole heavy deck to make the most of it in terms of spares, uavs, containarized bombs (like the Royal Navy did in Falklands) or vehicles or amphibious.
Don´t trust the tankers are going to be deployed far away risk free, as Saswanabe said they are easy targets, so in case of high intensity scenarios you migh think its safer to have jets from inside the Awd bubble. Many people here have already made comparisons stating that a carreir is more efective, is faster, more flexible, etc, i remember Weasel and Abraham, so their replies are somewhere in this thread.
They are sending militar frigates with the helos to try to hunt the pirates in Somalia. There quite a few frigates and Orions P3 in round Somalian coast etc.
I recall in the Yugoslavian context, as far i remember it has been the only time where the Principe de Asturias had to do real job sorties for gathering info, it didn´t release any bomb i think. Imagine a blockade of some zone in the world, Ran could contribute massively with the jets.
I hope i am not driving some of you :flame
As one of those Tea Party supporters I think it is necessary add little clarification. To the members of the board that are not US citizens you may not realize that within our federal system, most of the services that most people relay upon from their government (normal government) and the laws the we live by, day by day, are in our system provided by the various States and not by the federal government. This is not true in most countries which have far more centralized control of these functions than is found in the USA. The problem with our Federal budget is structural and they are as a direct result of the Federal government trying to do things on the social welfare front which are not part of its primary duties. The federal government needs to do (to concentrate) what only the federal government can only do, things like Defense as just one example and get out of the social engineering business.
To get our finances under control will require a paring back of the federal government which can only be done if everybody takes a hit. Something which we can afford to do right now for we have sufficient power at the moment as long as it is only temporary. Even in defense for a while, so we can fix the long term problems and restructure the balance of power and responsibilities between the federal government and the States to where they belong. Afterward we can then give the military the resource that it needs. If we don’t, long term we will go broke that is far worse.
Jaimito, we are well past the Canberra debate, it is not suitable and would need all but a total re-design to become an effective STOVL carrier. Although this is a hypothetical thread, we are trying to keep it within the actual realm of possibility, while everyone is free to put forward their own point of view (within reason) this type of talk is going to result in the closing of the thread !
I think the best reason to have a strike (not a ASW) carrier is to stop nations aggressively dealing with nearby nations (invading or genocide etc).
If Indonesia invaded East Pupa or simular. Malaysia emergency again, etc. Its all pretty unlikely...
If Indonesia invaded East Pupa or simular. Malaysia emergency again, etc. Its all pretty unlikely...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I should do some reading on HF communications before making such a bold claim if I were you...
Learning about radio waves bouncing off the ionosphere in particular might be of some use in trying to understand this issue....
This is NOT Australia’s defence strategy. It was briefly during the 1980s and 1990s for rather unrealistic reasons. The defence strategy of Australia is laid out in our White Paper documents and is like most countries without direct threats of invasion (like the USA) about maintaining global security. In our case this global security role is focused on our immediate region (South East Asia and the South West Pacific) and contiguous zones of high sensitivity (Middle East and East Asia).
The role of the Navy is to provide expeditionary task groups for sea and littoral control, to support amphibious landings and deploy strategic effects via submarines. The Navy is not there to DEFEND the sea borders of Australia but it does play a major role in POLICING these borders (a big difference).
In order to improve the lethality and survivability of these surface task groups the Navy has programs underway to acquire missile based maritime strike and extended range air defence. These are roles that are usually the domain of a naval aircraft carrier and its air wing. While the missiles (TLAM, SM6, etc) can provide these roles in limited capacity a carrier would be more effective but of course more expensive. The case for a carrier is caught up in cost-benefit analysis of the threat level and the ability to spend money on weapons acquisitions.
The thread is on an Administrative holiday.
Its been going around and around and around in circles and some of us are starting to get Cabin Fever watching it.
To be re-opened (if ever) after the Mod team has a chat.
I'd suggest that no-one try to defibrilate it via the RAN thread as those posts trying to do a Lazarus on the subject will just get deleted.
Its been going around and around and around in circles and some of us are starting to get Cabin Fever watching it.
To be re-opened (if ever) after the Mod team has a chat.
I'd suggest that no-one try to defibrilate it via the RAN thread as those posts trying to do a Lazarus on the subject will just get deleted.
- Status