Fantasy RAN thread (Carriers only)

[Sierra Mike]

TBH if (enormous IF there) then RAN were to get back into the CV & fixed-wing aviation game, I think better service could be had from modern aircraft covering the roles of the S-2 Tracker, S-3 Viking, or E-1 Tracer, basically fixed wing ASW/MPA, and AEW. The ASW & MPA components could provide outer layer awareness and response to surface and sub-surface threats around and/or ahead of a naval TF. The AEW capability could provide an enhanced sensor footprint again covering surface as well as aerial contacts and due to the greater altitude and potentially better radar positioning and power (antennae output + onboard computer/signal processing) could provide a much greater range and volume air search. In effect, a greater chance that inbound threats could be detected whilst still over the horizon from any ship-mounted radars.

ASW at Sea:
Is carrier born fixed wing ASW a thing anymore? S-3 is no longer in service and a replacement doesn't exist, and then your talking CATOBAR...

Aerial ASW is the domain of shore based MPA (RAAF P-8) with Tanker support, or Fleet Rotary. So if the RAN determines it's needed and want's to significantly increase fleet based ASW then get a suitable helicopter carrier and leave the LHD's to do what they're meant to do.

For mine it's Izumo's and more (lots more) MH-60R. Imagine how happy the Japanese would be after the submarine cluster...

AEW at Sea:
Current options for AEW at sea are limited to fixed wing requiring CATOBAR to launch and recover. Yes the Brits have previously hung stuff from helicoptors but...

The only realistic option is shore based AEW (RAAF E-7) with Tanker support.

F-35B only comes into the picture as a limited AEW capability due to the integration of it's extensive onboard sensor suite into the Combat Management System, effectively taking up some aspects of AEW.

 

[Todjaeger]

ASW at Sea:
Is carrier born fixed wing ASW a thing anymore? S-3 is no longer in service and a replacement doesn't exist, and then your talking CATOBAR...

Aerial ASW is the domain of shore based MPA (RAAF P-8) with Tanker support, or Fleet Rotary. So if the RAN determines it's needed and want's to significantly increase fleet based ASW then get a suitable helicopter carrier and leave the LHD's to do what they're meant to do.

For mine it's Izumo's and more (lots more) MH-60R. Imagine how happy the Japanese would be after the submarine cluster...

AEW at Sea:
Current options for AEW at sea are limited to fixed wing requiring CATOBAR to launch and recover. Yes the Brits have previously hung stuff from helicoptors but...

The only realistic option is shore based AEW (RAAF E-7) with Tanker support.

F-35B only comes into the picture as a limited AEW capability due to the integration of it's extensive onboard sensor suite into the Combat Management System, effectively taking up some aspects of AEW.

As I understand it, the USN is looking at options or solutions to replace at least some of the capabilities the S-3 Vikings provided. Part of the issue and potential value of organic, fixed-wing ASW is that it can provide an ASW capability at a greater distance away from the supporting carrier than a naval helicopter typically can. As an example of that, an S-3 Viking's cruising speed is ~200 knots faster than that of a Sea Hawk, which can allow it to get to further stations to start sanitizing an area ahead of the arrival of a TF, as well as providing an outer screening layer that potentially hostile subs would need to cross, prior to encountering ASW escort vessels and their embarked naval helicopters. As a side note, the USN now also appears to have one or two SSN's accompany CSG's to also provide a response to hostile subs. Having said that though, it does seem as there is still some concern about the potential for longer ranged, sub-launched standoff AShM. This is part of the reason why the notion of refurbishing and reactivating S-3 Vikings has been sometimes brought up despite the aircraft having been retired from squadron service in ~2009.

There are a few potential options for an embarked AEW capability, should Australia choose to add such a capability. My main point is that despite how much interest people might have in 'cool' kit like fighters taking off from RAN CV's to either engage enemy aircraft or launch strikes against enemy targets, there are several other much more useful (from a total warfighting system POV) types of kit, albeit ones no where as sexy.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Changing the ramp..
Doesn't provide for any extra hangar space
Doesn't provide for anymore lifts to the flight deck
Doesn't provide more troop accom space
Doesn't provide any more weapons lift or refuelling points
Would require significant redesign. The jump is very integrated, part of the outer hull
Would require additional cost, time, risk
Would make the ship an orphan type - can't benefit from certifications the Spanish etc do. Totally different airflow across the ship etc.

Does create perhaps an extra spot far away up the front.

Its these sort of wacky localisaltions we should be moving away from. How much do we really gain from a 7th maybe spot compared to the costs inc opportunity costs.

I believe the LHD have moderate capability as a carrier. The Spainsh seem pretty happy with the JC1 operating harriers, and while F35b's aren't Harriers, the basics are there for some sort of light carrier capability in the future if it needed to be developed.. But it would be a development, money time and effort. Again IMO. However, for Australia that isn't quite enough to go out and buy F-35B's.

We lack escorts. 3 hobarts, all going into upgrade mean no reliable deployable escort other than an Anzac. Which isn't designed to escort a ship by itself like the LHD. Australia would need ~5-6 hobarts to form a proper escort, like say Spain can.

The RAAF lacks planes. The RAAF makes a strong case for 100 F-35A's, so a 4th squadron can be forward deployed. IMO it isn't worth looking at F-35b's until the ADF has at least 100 F-35A. While reviewed and maybe filled with other capability, IMO recent events have proven perhaps we are better getting real manned aircraft today than waiting for not yet in service still in development drones of the future. Then we have sustainable squadrons that can be rotated from a forward deployed location. We need to get the training pipeline sorted as well. Decide what we are going to do with the SH once the MC-55a come on line, and blk IV F-35 and where that leaves growlers. How do we upgrade blkiii to blkIv with our existing aircraft pool without pulling apart our existing capability?

Ordering F-35B's today would mean getting them when? 2027?2028? Standing up IOC when? FOC when? Singapore has already ordered theirs, and expect them to start delivery by 2026. We don't even have a project to acquire them, IMO we would be lucky to start getting deliveries before 2030.

Any new build ship/platform. We could probably order an additional LHD from spain/turkey and see IOC before 2030, maybe, maybe spain could forward deploy JC1 to Aus to help train (huge if/maybe). Any other platform and we would be lucky to cut steel before 2030 just to do due diligence, order long lead, etc. Cavour, Izumo, etc are completely different ships, not in hot yards with huge crew and unique systems. If we are trying to do this with the existing LHDs, well arguably two isn't enough for their existing roles. They have been centre peices of our contributions to rimpac and indopacific, and we work them hard. Throwing new missions means messing up what we have already been doing. But maybe the F-35B can basically be deployed from islands and only carried by LHDs?

P8's. P8's can do long range strike. While I found the idea of P3's throwing harpoons as a strike platform to replace the F-111's pretty lame, the P8 is a far newer, faster and longer ranged platform, and LRASM is much better than Harpoon. This is our front line aircraft at the moment, doing freedoms in SCS. Should we not perhaps acquire that 15th airframe before looking at more ambitious programs?

Sm-6 is a longer ranged missile, and can be cued by things like the E7 and with Australias fairly significant long range sensor capability and its own seeker, it buys distance. Its not the same, but we start to narrow down the distance a patrolling F-35b would have from a carrier and the capability a Sm-6. How much are we spending to cover that distance? What are we engaging? Fighters? Bombers? Ships?

The time frame is running out. Realistically we know when peak tension is going to happen. 2027 to about 2035. Its not that procuring capability beyond this timeframe are a waste, just that perhaps we should focus more on the immediate what can be done in less than 10 years.

Realistically we would have to basically be pulling all stops today to build some sort of capability. Ordering 3 new hobarts to be FOC by 2027. Ordering 24 F-35A + F-35B's to be FOC by 2027, probably ordering a new LHD already adapted for F-35 operations (which could drop into service as the other two are upgraded later). It would make sense to first order things like the additional P8(s). We would have to have a plan about what we are doing about the Superhornets long term. We would need weapons etc already in flow, and somehow all of this additional stuff not to take away from existing mega projects and acquisitions.

But what is the mission? close air patrol of the fleet? Where in the region are we seeing this. Are we loosing butterworth? If that is the case is it even viable with some mild carrier capability to be in that space if we have already lost the hearts and minds of the region?

While I don't like to say things are impossible. I just don't see it in this case how its possible. I haven't seen a strong argument of why. Or a realistic, or heck even unrealistic plan of how to acquire. or the insurmountable advantage. Then there would have to be some sort of magical change how the raaf thinks and what the navy wants and can provide.

This is the problem with carrier talk and the RAN. People say they want it. But no answer to how, or where or why or when. Its just I want this platform. This platform is cool.

I think you make some really good points, and I largely agree with you . If I could offer some thoughts on your last point though, I think it should be considered that the argument remains at a very basic level - i.e. does Australia need an aircraft carrier - precisely because it hasn't progressed beyond that point. And I want to say at the outset that I agree with the argument that one could make a long list of capabilities we should spend our money on first.

That said, I think one can make arguments for such a capability.

One I'd make is to consider anti-submarine warfare a little more. (I think we're all a bit fixated on the F-35B.) Someone said earlier that they'd like to see the Canberras able to be used as ASW carriers. That was dismissed - fairly - by another poster who said that would remove from their role of carrying ground forces and their aviation support. True. The Canberras will likely carry one or two Romeos, but not more. Though that then means you're not going to have a lot of ASW helicopters at sea. A hypothetical RAN task force of a Canberra, the Choules (or its replacement), an AOR, and three or four escorts (Hobarts, Hunters, Anzacs) might "field" (wrong word at sea no doubt) six or seven. That's enough with two sorties a day to have one in the air at all times, but if the submarine threat is serious, you're going to want more. With a carrier, you could double the number. You could have two helicopters in the air at all times, and another ready to react to contacts.

Another point to mention is that of a shortage of escorts. Fair, though could we also not look back at history a little here? What escorts did HMAS Melbourne have through the '70s? The Perth Class were good, yeah, but the rest were comparatively worse than having Anzacs, don't we think? Not a reason to deny the issue, but I think it's worth noting. More broadly, obviously what escort any high value asset needs would also depend on the assessed threat.

I do have a question. You mentioned how we could probably order a third LHD from Spain. I wonder, if in the very much unlikely event a decision was taken to acquire a carrier, could the same company build one to a heavily modified design based on the LHD, deleting the dock, extending the hangar, maybe increasing speed? Could this though deliver advantages if it still shared some design and equipment similarities?

 

[Sierra Mike]

As I understand it, the USN is looking at options or solutions to replace at least some of the capabilities the S-3 Vikings provided.....

....My main point is that despite how much interest people might have in 'cool' kit like fighters taking off from RAN CV's to either engage enemy aircraft or launch strikes against enemy targets, there are several other much more useful (from a total warfighting system POV) types of kit, albeit ones no where as sexy.

T: I'm not across future USN plans for fleet ASW but replacement of S-3 capability makes sense to me.

I also agree that many get seduced by the wow factor of fast, loud, heavy things drilling holes in the other peoples things. What is overlooked is the not so cool integration of the system of systems providing clarity to the decision makers about what gets a hole drilled in it...

Going back to the RAN, I really don't see the immediate need or desire for CV capability. There are other higher priority major platforms that need sorting first (submarines and frigates/destroyers).

For mine, submarines are still the best at ASW and this should be priority A1 for the CoA and ADF to get sorted.

 

[Todjaeger]

I think you make some really good points, and I largely agree with you . If I could offer some thoughts on your last point though, I think it should be considered that the argument remains at a very basic level - i.e. does Australia need an aircraft carrier - precisely because it hasn't progressed beyond that point. And I want to say at the outset that I agree with the argument that one could make a long list of capabilities we should spend our money on first.

That said, I think one can make arguments for such a capability.

One I'd make is to consider anti-submarine warfare a little more. (I think we're all a bit fixated on the F-35B.) Someone said earlier that they'd like to see the Canberras able to be used as ASW carriers. That was dismissed - fairly - by another poster who said that would remove from their role of carrying ground forces and their aviation support. True. The Canberras will likely carry one or two Romeos, but not more. Though that then means you're not going to have a lot of ASW helicopters at sea. A hypothetical RAN task force of a Canberra, the Choules (or its replacement), an AOR, and three or four escorts (Hobarts, Hunters, Anzacs) might "field" (wrong word at sea no doubt) six or seven. That's enough with two sorties a day to have one in the air at all times, but if the submarine threat is serious, you're going to want more. With a carrier, you could double the number. You could have two helicopters in the air at all times, and another ready to react to contacts.

Another point to mention is that of a shortage of escorts. Fair, though could we also not look back at history a little here? What escorts did HMAS Melbourne have through the '70s? The Perth Class were good, yeah, but the rest were comparatively worse than having Anzacs, don't we think? Not a reason to deny the issue, but I think it's worth noting. More broadly, obviously what escort any high value asset needs would also depend on the assessed threat.

I do have a question. You mentioned how we could probably order a third LHD from Spain. I wonder, if in the very much unlikely event a decision was taken to acquire a carrier, could the same company build one to a heavily modified design based on the LHD, deleting the dock, extending the hangar, maybe increasing speed? Could this though deliver advantages if it still shared some design and equipment similarities?

Not sure that the number of helicopters would be sufficient to enable a bird to be aloft at all times. Mission endurance for an MH-60T Jayhawk (USCG medium SAR helicopter) version of the Seahawk is 6-7 hours, but not sure how the potential extra weight of a LWT and/or AShM or Hellfires would impact mission endurance. Also not certain how much maintenance per flight hour would be reasonably expected. As a side note, with potentially two MH-60R's aboard an LHD (which might not actually be an accurate embarked force) plus four escorts, a force of six MH-60R's would be a reasonable number IMO. The only reason I would expect for Choules or the replacement, or one of the AOR's to have an embarked MH-60R is if the vessel is just being used to transport the helicopter into an area, most likely as a replacement for an already deployed helicopter that is down for maintenance/repair, or was lost. Choules for instance has a flight deck but no hangar and therefore no hangar magazine which would be required in order for an embarked naval helicopter to be armed with LWT's or missiles. Similarly, if the Supply-class AOR's, which do have helicopter hangars, lack a hangar magazine (which would not surprise me being that they are AOR's not combatants) that would put a major crimp in plans to base naval helicopters off an AOR.

Additionally, given how few escort vessels the RAN has at present as well as for a long while according to known plans, then it could be rather a big ask for there to even be four escorts available.

Lastly, it does seem as though others have the wrong impression on my thoughts. Whilst I would like to see the RAN with a CV force (done properly) since that would provide the RAN and ADF with a range of additional options and capabilities, it would need to be done properly. That means a lot more resources to get not just the carrier and associated aircraft, but all the other bits and bobs that would be needed. That includes more non-CV ships and subs to actually provide the sort of escort force which would realistically be needed. All this would require a great deal of both time to arrange, but also funding to acquire and then yet more to sustain. Given what would be required to do it 'right' there are quite a few other capabilities which are either more useful or needed before going down the CV route. TBH just getting additional escort vessels would likely be a good idea so that Australia can get to the point of having more than 3-4 warships that are either available for or already on deployments.

 

[seaspear]

I am not suggesting the current uav,s are as capable as the manned helicopters but it seems there is development in this , certainly the article suggests this one would be stored in its own container on ships maybe without regular storage areas?
AWHERO Unmanned Helicopter (naval-technology.com)
This article supplies some depth to what current asw manned and unmanned tactics may evolve, it might be possible to deploy such craft from carriers and the like in support of manned MH-60R,s from escort vessels

 

[seaspear]

Sustaining the Undersea Advantage: Transforming Anti-Submarine Warfare Using Autonomous Systems - by Bryan Clark Seth Cropsey Timothy A. Walton (hudson.org)

 

[StingrayOZ]

Part of the reason why people are hesitant about carriers is the history of Melbourne and how it was used to hostage funding from other areas. 2 more Oberon's or fixed wing fighters. etc. This type of negotiation is quite hurtful, as inevitably an area misses out and blames another. This causes internal bickering within organisation. The wind down from Vietnam then the peace dividend from the cold war means most people were familiar with a shrinking force mindset. Down to shagged platforms and no funding for munitions. A low priority and low funding.
Really growth has been weak even since 2000. Even when we have agreed to spend money, projects haven't exactly been painless. So reaching for ambitious capabilities hasn't typically be something rewarding in the ADF.

One I'd make is to consider anti-submarine warfare a little more. (I think we're all a bit fixated on the F-35B.) Someone said earlier that they'd like to see the Canberras able to be used as ASW carriers.

There is that possibility. Japans strong flattop capability was built around them being ASW platforms. They have powerful sonars integrated into the bow of the quite large ship. They are quite fast, and operate in a very different environment. We aren't really going to be facing a large number of Chinese diesel submarines like they would be expecting. Im not sure its an easy fit for the RAN and our Area and our needs. That being said, at times we do contribute to regional security elsewhere. Both the Japanese and the Indians have shown some interests in this kind of capability and operations with the RAN operating this way. Both forces don't have a thick phone book of navies to work with in this way.

I do have a question. You mentioned how we could probably order a third LHD from Spain. I wonder, if in the very much unlikely event a decision was taken to acquire a carrier, could the same company build one to a heavily modified design based on the LHD, deleting the dock, extending the hangar, maybe increasing speed? Could this though deliver advantages if it still shared some design and equipment similarities?

The Spanish no doubt have a carrier version penciled out, there are images... Remove the heavy deck (which isn't really used as a carrier), remove the dock. But this then quickly becomes a new design, with legacy limitations and a more specialized unit. Pods aren't ideal for a high speed ship like a dedicated carrier, etc. This new design then becomes an orphan, meaning everything is unique, and with modern systems, uniqueness is a trouble for integration. They will never be a proper carrier, like QE, with its large bunkerage, significant crew, automated weapons handling. Realistically, if a JC1/Canberra doesn't provide enough aviation then things tend to quick spill into something like a QE sized ship. Crews quickly inflate to 400-500 operating small 20-30kt carriers. The Italians and the Japanese have already done the engineering, and end up about the same.

They offer significant less capability to something like the QE which is big, but high automation and low crew for what it is. So instead of 4 x LM2500 engines, 2x MT30, as an example. So by building a bigger ship, they can upsize systems, more modern systems, reduce manning and have more bulky automation on board. Again UK has looked at what was out there, built something that is more efficient than a small ship.

 

[seaspear]

In regard to submarines the R.A.N may face the P.L.A.N does have nuclear submarines of the 093 and Han class
The Chinese Navy's Most Powerful Attack Submarine: The Type-093A - Naval News
This article from Navy Lookout does also show further asw concepts in development including the firing of asw Kingfisher depth charge from ships main gun
Novel technologies in anti-submarine warfare | Navy Lookout
It seems the R.A.N has a number of naval platforms that can perform over the horizon asw operations in support of or as a last resort in this context
If fixed wing is a desire perhaps something like the America class could be licensed to be built here ,these are still under construction in the U.S
America Class Amphibious Assault Ship - Naval Technology (naval-technology.com)

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Part of the reason why people are hesitant about carriers is the history of Melbourne and how it was used to hostage funding from other areas. 2 more Oberon's or fixed wing fighters. etc. This type of negotiation is quite hurtful, as inevitably an area misses out and blames another. This causes internal bickering within organisation. The wind down from Vietnam then the peace dividend from the cold war means most people were familiar with a shrinking force mindset. Down to shagged platforms and no funding for munitions. A low priority and low funding.
Really growth has been weak even since 2000. Even when we have agreed to spend money, projects haven't exactly been painless. So reaching for ambitious capabilities hasn't typically be something rewarding in the ADF.


There is that possibility. Japans strong flattop capability was built around them being ASW platforms. They have powerful sonars integrated into the bow of the quite large ship. They are quite fast, and operate in a very different environment. We aren't really going to be facing a large number of Chinese diesel submarines like they would be expecting. Im not sure its an easy fit for the RAN and our Area and our needs. That being said, at times we do contribute to regional security elsewhere. Both the Japanese and the Indians have shown some interests in this kind of capability and operations with the RAN operating this way. Both forces don't have a thick phone book of navies to work with in this way.


The Spanish no doubt have a carrier version penciled out, there are images... Remove the heavy deck (which isn't really used as a carrier), remove the dock. But this then quickly becomes a new design, with legacy limitations and a more specialized unit. Pods aren't ideal for a high speed ship like a dedicated carrier, etc. This new design then becomes an orphan, meaning everything is unique, and with modern systems, uniqueness is a trouble for integration. They will never be a proper carrier, like QE, with its large bunkerage, significant crew, automated weapons handling. Realistically, if a JC1/Canberra doesn't provide enough aviation then things tend to quick spill into something like a QE sized ship. Crews quickly inflate to 400-500 operating small 20-30kt carriers. The Italians and the Japanese have already done the engineering, and end up about the same.

They offer significant less capability to something like the QE which is big, but high automation and low crew for what it is. So instead of 4 x LM2500 engines, 2x MT30, as an example. So by building a bigger ship, they can upsize systems, more modern systems, reduce manning and have more bulky automation on board. Again UK has looked at what was out there, built something that is more efficient than a small ship.

Thank you. Some really good points; much to consider. I can particularly see that "the history of Melbourne and how it was used to hostage funding from other areas" can influence some to have a rather negative view on this discussion. It's certainly understandable from that perspective.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Not sure that the number of helicopters would be sufficient to enable a bird to be aloft at all times. Mission endurance for an MH-60T Jayhawk (USCG medium SAR helicopter) version of the Seahawk is 6-7 hours, but not sure how the potential extra weight of a LWT and/or AShM or Hellfires would impact mission endurance. Also not certain how much maintenance per flight hour would be reasonably expected. As a side note, with potentially two MH-60R's aboard an LHD (which might not actually be an accurate embarked force) plus four escorts, a force of six MH-60R's would be a reasonable number IMO. The only reason I would expect for Choules or the replacement, or one of the AOR's to have an embarked MH-60R is if the vessel is just being used to transport the helicopter into an area, most likely as a replacement for an already deployed helicopter that is down for maintenance/repair, or was lost. Choules for instance has a flight deck but no hangar and therefore no hangar magazine which would be required in order for an embarked naval helicopter to be armed with LWT's or missiles. Similarly, if the Supply-class AOR's, which do have helicopter hangars, lack a hangar magazine (which would not surprise me being that they are AOR's not combatants) that would put a major crimp in plans to base naval helicopters off an AOR.

Additionally, given how few escort vessels the RAN has at present as well as for a long while according to known plans, then it could be rather a big ask for there to even be four escorts available.

Lastly, it does seem as though others have the wrong impression on my thoughts. Whilst I would like to see the RAN with a CV force (done properly) since that would provide the RAN and ADF with a range of additional options and capabilities, it would need to be done properly. That means a lot more resources to get not just the carrier and associated aircraft, but all the other bits and bobs that would be needed. That includes more non-CV ships and subs to actually provide the sort of escort force which would realistically be needed. All this would require a great deal of both time to arrange, but also funding to acquire and then yet more to sustain. Given what would be required to do it 'right' there are quite a few other capabilities which are either more useful or needed before going down the CV route. TBH just getting additional escort vessels would likely be a good idea so that Australia can get to the point of having more than 3-4 warships that are either available for or already on deployments.

I'll have to find the document I've cited previously, but basically it's said that you need nine SH-60 sorties every 24 hours to keep one airborne (works out to 2 hours, 40 minutes on station). Two sorties a day per aircraft is sustainable, allowing more for the flight / maintenance crews to not be exhausted. So, yeah, if you have six Romeos, that'd provide for that minimum, but without much provision for responding to contacts. Add a carrier-born squadron of maybe 9 Romeos, plus let's say another 3 on the escorts, and you could have two up at all times. And of course the Romeo has other capabilities.

I agree too with what you were saying about more escorts and so forth.

 

[Antipode]

I think you make some really good points, and I largely agree with you . If I could offer some thoughts on your last point though, I think it should be considered that the argument remains at a very basic level - i.e. does Australia need an aircraft carrier - precisely because it hasn't progressed beyond that point. And I want to say at the outset that I agree with the argument that one could make a long list of capabilities we should spend our money on first.

That said, I think one can make arguments for such a capability.

One I'd make is to consider anti-submarine warfare a little more. (I think we're all a bit fixated on the F-35B.) Someone said earlier that they'd like to see the Canberras able to be used as ASW carriers. That was dismissed - fairly - by another poster who said that would remove from their role of carrying ground forces and their aviation support. True. The Canberras will likely carry one or two Romeos, but not more. Though that then means you're not going to have a lot of ASW helicopters at sea. A hypothetical RAN task force of a Canberra, the Choules (or its replacement), an AOR, and three or four escorts (Hobarts, Hunters, Anzacs) might "field" (wrong word at sea no doubt) six or seven. That's enough with two sorties a day to have one in the air at all times, but if the submarine threat is serious, you're going to want more. With a carrier, you could double the number. You could have two helicopters in the air at all times, and another ready to react to contacts.

Another point to mention is that of a shortage of escorts. Fair, though could we also not look back at history a little here? What escorts did HMAS Melbourne have through the '70s? The Perth Class were good, yeah, but the rest were comparatively worse than having Anzacs, don't we think? Not a reason to deny the issue, but I think it's worth noting. More broadly, obviously what escort any high value asset needs would also depend on the assessed threat.

I do have a question. You mentioned how we could probably order a third LHD from Spain. I wonder, if in the very much unlikely event a decision was taken to acquire a carrier, could the same company build one to a heavily modified design based on the LHD, deleting the dock, extending the hangar, maybe increasing speed? Could this though deliver advantages if it still shared some design and equipment similarities?

I suggested that (all times classic) third LHD as, for reasons widely discussed here, a dedicated aircraft carrier fleet is unreachable salve for superpowers, and a single one is hardly a wise investment for the RAN as a whole, where it may be for other navies.

I can’t provide a worthy cost/timeline estimate, but the will and know-how to build/transfere knowledge on such ships seems to be there, as high profile enquires for amphibious assault have been initiated recently by Egypt (First reported by Tactical Report, behind paywall)

Turkey may get a second LHD or derivative

Success In Building Anadolu TCG LHD, Turkey Is Ready To Build An Aircraft Carrier To Become A Global Power

and there is hope by Navantia for Saudi Arabia to get a couple of LPD (and light frigates) to follow their five Al-Jubali corvettes.

Due to Armada’s needs, it is likely that some designs are indeed penciled. An orphan ship, but still, looking suspiciously much like the milkman.

It would have fixed installations for aircraft sustainment at the two top decks, sacrificing part of the wet deck to fuel, with a reduced dock (2 LMC capacity size wise). Not the jack of all trades that a JC1/Canberra are, but some flexibility would remain.

Not to be faster than Canberra/Adelaide, the idea would be redundancy for damage/availability and wider reach/flexibility for all the aircraft on a TF.


Independently useful and flexible assets that can operate together as the center of a TF. As mentioned, Canberra class would be adapted to normally embark 4/6 F35. Both UK and USA, likely deployment partners, are highly committed to this particular aircraft as well.

But the cost of it is still eye watering, and more escorts won’t start arriving until 2031.

 

[MickB]

I'll have to find the document I've cited previously, but basically it's said that you need nine SH-60 sorties every 24 hours to keep one airborne (works out to 2 hours, 40 minutes on station). Two sorties a day per aircraft is sustainable, allowing more for the flight / maintenance crews to not be exhausted. So, yeah, if you have six Romeos, that'd provide for that minimum, but without much provision for responding to contacts. Add a carrier-born squadron of maybe 9 Romeos, plus let's say another 3 on the escorts, and you could have two up at all times. And of course the Romeo has other capabilities.

I agree too with what you were saying about more escorts and so forth.

To increase the number of helos and to better intergrate future drones, I would like to see the final 3 Hunter class frigates redesigned as a scaled down Hyuga/Izumo DDH.

Based on the Hunter hull these FFHs could operate an air wing of 8-10 aircraft depending on mix.
This is an ASW focused vessel.
Using Mk 57 deck edge VLS to keep the flight deck clear.
All other systems to be basicly the same as a standard Hunter. Except the 5 in gun.

In no way do I see such a vessel operating manned fixed wing aircraft.

 

[Redlands18]

To increase the number of helos and to better intergrate future drones, I would like to see the final 3 Hunter class frigates redesigned as a scaled down Hyuga/Izumo DDH.

Based on the Hunter hull these FFHs could operate an air wing of 8-10 aircraft depending on mix.
This is an ASW focused vessel.
Using Mk 57 deck edge VLS to keep the flight deck clear.
All other systems to be basicly the same as a standard Hunter. Except the 5 in gun.

In no way do I see such a vessel operating manned fixed wing aircraft.

Are you talking about a modern version of the Vittorio Veneto? Or turning the Type 26 into a through deck design? By 1980 the Italians had decided that the Helicopter Cruiser with all aviation aft was not a great way to handle anymore then 2 Helicopters, so when it come to replacing the Andrea Doria class they went to a through deck design in the Garibaldi. The Veneto worked better then the Doria's due to having the Hangar beneath the flight deck but when it come time to replace her, they went through deck again with the Cavour.
If we wanted a Light Helicopter only Carrier, there are plenty of modern options from Japan and ROK or modernised versions of the Light Carrier designs from Italy and Spain.

 

[MickB]

Are you talking about a modern version of the Vittorio Veneto? Or turning the Type 26 into a through deck design? By 1980 the Italians had decided that the Helicopter Cruiser with all aviation aft was not a great way to handle anymore then 2 Helicopters, so when it come to replacing the Andrea Doria class they went to a through deck design in the Garibaldi. The Veneto worked better then the Doria's due to having the Hangar beneath the flight deck but when it come time to replace her, they went through deck again with the Cavour.
If we wanted a Light Helicopter only Carrier, there are plenty of modern options from Japan and ROK or modernised versions of the Light Carrier designs from Italy and Spain.

A through deck Type 26 or as close as practical.
Design issues such as a hull plug to increase displacement or redesign of bridge structure are part of why I suggested the final 3 in the build as these are still some years from cutting steel.
As an ASW focused ship retaining the quiet running features of the Type 26/Hunter would be an advantage.
Plus retaining as much commonality with the Hunter as possible would help in both construction and crew training.
A local design and build would still be part of the continuous build program.
I would still consider these ships as escort vessels not carriers.
The 5 in gun would need to be deleted.

A future task force could be escorted by a Hobart AWD,1 or 2 Hunter FFGs and a Hunter based FFH.

 

[alexsa]

Folks, this thread is on thin ice as it is. Can we please keep things within the bounds of some sort of reality. Specifically in this case the idea of turning Hunters into trough deck cruisers or the like. Changing a design is not as simple as a hull plug and there you go!!!!.... You are proposing a total redesign and it would be simpler just to pick up an existing design..... designed to be a helo carrier.

The issues with growing the Hunter should be inidicate the complexity of changing a design and in this case it is still going to be a small flat top..... which would appear not to be good at either task being such a compromise. The RAN is short of escorts as it is.

This is a warning ...... some of the mods are not fans of this thread but it is currently being kept open to have a look at realistic options.

alexsa

 

[StingrayOZ]

If fixed wing is a desire perhaps something like the America class could be licensed to be built here ,these are still under construction in the U.S
America Class Amphibious Assault Ship - Naval Technology (naval-technology.com)

The America class is an interesting ship. While marines platform based, they are aviation focused, and can carry and operate a useful number of aircraft with a ~20 F-35B's. But as with many Americans things that are pretty crew intensive, three times what a Canberra takes, many more than a QE carrier. Countries that could man the platform seem to not be interested in it either, Japan, India, UK, Brazil etc. Although America came out much later than most of these other solutions. They do seem good sized ships to operate F-35B's, and have demonstrated that capability.

Italy's Trieste is another implementation.

First sea-going for Italian Navy's New LHD Trieste (L 9890) - Naval News

The Fincantieri shipbuilder conducted the first sea-going of the Trieste (L 9890) Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) on 12 August.

www.navalnews.com

Both of these ships kept their vehicle decks. So I wonder really if its that advantageous to do so when specializing a ship for a particular role.
The Americans deleted the dock, while the Italians built a ship with a dock.

While dedicated aviation ships tend to have advantages like speed. That isn't really relevant for the RAN, we didn't really build a 30+kt navy. The four bladed props on the LHD should net the Canberra class a bit more speed in theory, ~24 kts. But there is some conjecture about what they are for and maybe for reduced harmonic vibration.

For the F-35B speed isn't really an issue. It able to launch even in heavy configurations off most platforms regardless of wind.

The F-35B itself seems to be doing well as a platform, with additional users buying into it. Spear3 seems to offer very interesting capability on the F-35B in the antishipping role.

 

[seaspear]

The idea of a carrier may easily be put in the nice to have basket rather than the must ,for any carrier to be effective especially in the wide expanses of the Seas and oceans surrounding Australia where it would require its own dedicated escorts surface and subsurface and have a meaningful size for its onboard operations , Perhaps this article on South Koreas plan for a carrier sound familiar to discussions here
South Korea's new CVX Aircraft Carrier project: An overview - Naval News

 

[Redlands18]

The idea of a carrier may easily be put in the nice to have basket rather than the must ,for any carrier to be effective especially in the wide expanses of the Seas and oceans surrounding Australia where it would require its own dedicated escorts surface and subsurface and have a meaningful size for its onboard operations , Perhaps this article on South Koreas plan for a carrier sound familiar to discussions here
South Korea's new CVX Aircraft Carrier project: An overview - Naval News

South Korea's next Defense Minister Expresses Reservations on CVX program - Naval News
That program is in real doubt since the recent change of Government, pity from a purely aesthetic POV the HHI design looks really cool.

 

[ngatimozart]

South Korea's next Defense Minister Expresses Reservations on CVX program - Naval News
That program is in real doubt since the recent change of Government, pity from a purely aesthetic POV the HHI design looks really cool.

Yes the program is in real doubt, however it doesn't mean that for the purposes of this discussion that the design should be dismissed out of hand. It certainly has some good aspects to it and would be arguably the best on offer at the moment. It's specifically designed with the F-35B in mind and unlike a JC-1 variant design is modern; or the Trieste a modified LHD. There is talk of possible Babcock Marine, BAE systems, and Thales involvement in the South Korean project, and if that is the case then there will be some CV expertise from the UK QE CV program involved with the SK CV design process. Even if the ROKN don't go ahead with the project, there's no reason for the design to be excluded from an future RAN CV program IF one ever happens.