Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Reptilia]

Arafura class progress alot slower than I expected.

Pat Conroy visited Henderson yesterday and posted some pics on his Facebook page.

We may see Pilbara in service next year but it might be sometime before we see OPV 4, 5 and 6.

 

[InterestedParty]

If we had an aircraft carrier, how many of our remining ships and submarines would be required for escort duty

 

[Todjaeger]

Depends how we want to operate and where we wanted to operate. I think the AEW is the least of the problems.

E7's have *significant* range. Its conceivable to need to operate in that space fighters, but covered by E7 and P8s. Infact one of the reasons to have a carrier is perhaps to provide some protection for E7/P8s. Particularly if you consider the E7/P8s shuttling between airbases rather than just going out the the deep blue, flying in a circle and flying back. In addition JORN, and sats are eye watching beyond that.

Something like seaguardian might provide some basic AEW capability. They can have a podded Leonardo Seaspray 7500E V2 AESA radar.

But you would be doing all the heavy lifting with this. We can just wait until Britain, Italy or Japan does something similar and assess their performance and value with it.

How does 12 F-35bs change the game? It might against a small or middle power, but against China? Not a lot. The F-35B is pretty short ranged.
The LHD were really designed for very light carrier duties, essentially training an perhaps interim measures. Spain has that want because of their far flung island territories and their historical need for that. Maybe more useful after the US-China conflict?

IMO I've always though a 3rd LHD would be needed to provide reliable carrier capability. Training could then be shared across platforms, and then if required, two LHD could be surged, either both in carrier mode, or one in carrier and one in amphibious. With two carriers, one could be day, one could be night, and if required, both could surge for intense ops. Also they could be located distance apart allowing for some lilly padding possibly with a land airfield. Or one provides CAP and one provides ASW capability. A 3rd LHD would also give excellent amphibious capabilities. I think it would still need to be augmented by smaller amphibious ships, but could replace choules, and we still go with ~4-6 smaller amphibious ships to augment that capability. A third LHD could be built to Turkeys spec, with a higher capability in mind, and we now have several classes modified for F-35b ops to see what that would look like. Singapore, Japan, UK, US have F-35Bs.

But there is a lot of unknowns.. And a lot of money. Are there more urgent capabilities? At least in the carrier space, that money would give us new additional capabilities. But are they capabilities we need? Weapons integration would also need to be looked at. Maybe JSM on MQ-9? Stormbreaker? F-35B still waiting on block IV. is 35B a bit of dead end engine wise.

Sure another LHD, 24x F-35B, 12 x Seaguardian mq9b, maybe some other drone (sea ghost bat?) $10b in acquisition, plus modifying the existing ships, years in docks, taking up time and resources. Perhaps some C130J refuellers. How do our neighbors feel about the temperature of us operating that and training and exercising with that in their region? Are they cool? These days, yeh, probably. What's our strategy? Are they based butterworth? Singapore, is it like a rapid reaction force? Are they permanently embarked on the LHDs? They are the based off other islands? Manus?

From my perspective AEW support would be quite important to have, otherwise any embarked fighters would be largely ineffective since there would not be any system which would have the range, reach and degree of visibility (radar horizon) which could then actually vector fighters to where they would be needed or could do the most good.

I also tend to think that assuming RAAF E-7's could support a TF at range for any length of time, is an unrealistic assumption. Yes, the E-7 can have long range, longer still if in-flight refueling is done. However, there are several real and absolute hard limits. The RAAF only has six E-7's in inventory, and only seven KC-30 MRTT's. Also, I forget the exact number but the E-7 has a maximum mission endurance of something like 15 or 18 hours, which cannot be extended by tanking as the limit is not onboard aircraft fuel. This in turn means that two E-7's would be required to provide 24 hour AEW coverage for a distant RAN TF. Once one begins taking into account the potential maintenance and training demands, Australia could quickly find itself needing to dedicate the entire AEW fleet to support a single distant carrier-type vessel at the expense of providing AEW capabilities for all other ADF assets. This is also making assumptions about whether or not Australia would get the necessary overflight permission certain operational areas would likely need, in order for an E-7 to be able to get to where a RAN TF might be operating.

I would also discount JORN being something which could take the place of an organic AEW capability, again for several reasons. One of the first reasons is that it is quite possible that any Australian carrier-type vessel might get deployed to an area that is really outside the area JORN can normally/reliably monitor. Secondly, even if the supposed Australian vessel was operating in an area under the gaze of JORN, as it is publicly understood, JORN can provide a 'tripwire' detection capability, but not target quality data. I take this to mean that JORN could detect something in an area or if something has move into an area, but not necessarily be able to identify what it is, or exactly where it is, possibly including a lack of altitude data (i.e. is the detected target a surface ship, or an aircraft flying at 30k feet...) Further, I suspect that there would be issues trying to relay data from JORN to an end-user fighter pilot who could then make use of it. JORN data AFAIK goes to a command centre in RAAF Base Edinburgh but again that data is not target quality which makes me think that it would not be something which could be shared via datalinks like other radar returns can, never mind what can be shared via CEC. What might be possible would be for someone in the JORN JCC to call/radio to a TF or some other asset that there might be something of interest and give an approximate location or bearing, so that another asset (like an AEW aircraft) could be tasked to take a look.

One should also reexamine the likely number of potential aircraft. When I mentioned a dozen fighters, I had been looking at the Spanish Armada's plans for JC1 and not the RAN's Canberra-class LHD which were based off that. From what I have come across, it does seem like the RAN vessels are slightly different, with less of an aviation focus which makes sense since the original Spanish plans were to use JC1 as a sort of backup carrier while their CVL Principe de Asturias was in refit or getting replaced. Now however, Spain has decommissioned their dedicated carrier and not commissioned a replacement as of yet. One example of the likely difference is that JC1 can carry up to 30 helicopters using the hangar and light vehicle deck, whilst it appears that a Canberra-class LHD can carry up to 18 both the hangar and light vehicle deck. This leads me to believe that a RAN LHD might only be able to embark perhaps eight F-35B's, which itself might be enough to maintain a CAP over a TF.

 

[Morgo]

For the cost of one carrier worthy of the name and an air wing we could probably afford 3+ DDGs, especially if we don’t over complicate it and just adapt Hunters with as little variation as possible.

I know which I’d prefer.

 

[DDG38]

If we had an aircraft carrier, how many of our remining ships and submarines would be required for escort duty

None, because we couldn't man both.

 

[Wombat000]

As beneficial as an air wing might (would) be, perhaps it would be more practical to modify as appropriate to ensure effective and somewhat sustainable cross-decking of others aircraft, such as USMC.
In the first instance tho, I think it would be well beyond time for appropriate furnishing of organic CIWS!

 

[iambuzzard]

As beneficial as an air wing might (would) be, perhaps it would be more practical to modify as appropriate to ensure effective and somewhat sustainable cross-decking of others aircraft, such as USMC.
In the first instance tho, I think it would be well beyond time for appropriate furnishing of organic CIWS!

Wombat, that would be a sensible course of action. I wonder what the cost would be to upgrade the flight deck? You would have to imbed USMC Flight Ops crew onboard to co-ordinate it. As for CIWS, it needs to be yesterday. Any flat top should have it's own organic defence system. Missiles and Phalanx in multiple locations. I'm not talking deck penetrating Mk.41 VLS, but SeaRam would do. If they lose their escort for any reason they're dead meat.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I also tend to think that assuming RAAF E-7's could support a TF at range for any length of time, is an unrealistic assumption. Yes, the E-7 can have long range, longer still if in-flight refueling is done. However, there are several real and absolute hard limits. The RAAF only has six E-7's in inventory, and only seven KC-30 MRTT's. Also, I forget the exact number but the E-7 has a maximum mission endurance of something like 15 or 18 hours, which cannot be extended by tanking as the limit is not onboard aircraft fuel. This in turn means that two E-7's would be required to provide 24 hour AEW coverage for a distant RAN TF. Once one begins taking into account the potential maintenance and training demands, Australia could quickly find itself needing to dedicate the entire AEW fleet to support a single distant carrier-type vessel at the expense of providing AEW capabilities for all other ADF assets. This is also making assumptions about whether or not Australia would get the necessary overflight permission certain operational areas would likely need, in order for an E-7 to be able to get to where a RAN TF might be operating.

It's certainly a limitation.

Still it appears to be more capability than other nations who operate carriers. The E7 fleet could be expanded (at additional cost, at $300m+ a peice) or augmented. I'm not sure Australia could operate a carrier away and independently of its airforce and perform other missions in other theatres. If operating near singapore I imagine there would be some help from allies. Yes, overflight could be a concern, but again, I'm not sure we intend to against local support. MQ9 aren't cheap either, and would take up space, so if we are talking about 8-12 F-35B's on board, mq9s would have to be subtracted from that total. At least with the E7 they aren't dependant on the LHD meger resources to operate, and are by far the most capable AEW on the planet and offer no compromises.

One should also reexamine the likely number of potential aircraft. When I mentioned a dozen fighters, I had been looking at the Spanish Armada's plans for JC1 and not the RAN's Canberra-class LHD which were based off that. From what I have come across, it does seem like the RAN vessels are slightly different, with less of an aviation focus which makes sense since the original Spanish plans were to use JC1 as a sort of backup carrier while their CVL Principe de Asturias was in refit or getting replaced. Now however, Spain has decommissioned their dedicated carrier and not commissioned a replacement as of yet.

Well the spanish operate Harriers, but their plans for F-35B haven't materialised. Turkeys plans for F-35B on its LHD haven't materialised either. Surely a sign that perhaps this concept isn't as desirable as it may first seem. The LHD was only ever a sometimes carrier. It could transport planes (and can transport a decent number of planes ~30 harriers) it could operate them which as you say, if their main ship was in refit, or as a training platform. Spanish carrier ambitions were a little bit of airpower, a little further out or transporting STOVL afar.

However I think the small carrier concept is under pressure from drones. Smaller carriers can't do what big carriers can do, industrial ordinance dumping. Support massive manned airwings patrolling. You get a pretty compromised outcome. I would tend to favour our manned platforms to be bigger and longer ranged, like the E7. The E7 could control a hundred large long range drones or even naval drones. Or the P8.

So in that sense, rather than pursue a carrier, manned fighters, a naval AEW platform, naval refuelling platforms, just acquire more E7s and more drones, both naval and land.

A carrier for Australia would be a huge burden on our AOR, escorts, subs, resources like manning, money, time, program management, integration etc. What ever individual capability would would offer Australia would be marginal, with marginal avalibility. The only space it may make sense is through partners like the US, UK JP etc. Even then, our efforts would be fairly tokenistic.

 

[Stampede]

From my perspective AEW support would be quite important to have, otherwise any embarked fighters would be largely ineffective since there would not be any system which would have the range, reach and degree of visibility (radar horizon) which could then actually vector fighters to where they would be needed or could do the most good.

I also tend to think that assuming RAAF E-7's could support a TF at range for any length of time, is an unrealistic assumption. Yes, the E-7 can have long range, longer still if in-flight refueling is done. However, there are several real and absolute hard limits. The RAAF only has six E-7's in inventory, and only seven KC-30 MRTT's. Also, I forget the exact number but the E-7 has a maximum mission endurance of something like 15 or 18 hours, which cannot be extended by tanking as the limit is not onboard aircraft fuel. This in turn means that two E-7's would be required to provide 24 hour AEW coverage for a distant RAN TF. Once one begins taking into account the potential maintenance and training demands, Australia could quickly find itself needing to dedicate the entire AEW fleet to support a single distant carrier-type vessel at the expense of providing AEW capabilities for all other ADF assets. This is also making assumptions about whether or not Australia would get the necessary overflight permission certain operational areas would likely need, in order for an E-7 to be able to get to where a RAN TF might be operating.

I would also discount JORN being something which could take the place of an organic AEW capability, again for several reasons. One of the first reasons is that it is quite possible that any Australian carrier-type vessel might get deployed to an area that is really outside the area JORN can normally/reliably monitor. Secondly, even if the supposed Australian vessel was operating in an area under the gaze of JORN, as it is publicly understood, JORN can provide a 'tripwire' detection capability, but not target quality data. I take this to mean that JORN could detect something in an area or if something has move into an area, but not necessarily be able to identify what it is, or exactly where it is, possibly including a lack of altitude data (i.e. is the detected target a surface ship, or an aircraft flying at 30k feet...) Further, I suspect that there would be issues trying to relay data from JORN to an end-user fighter pilot who could then make use of it. JORN data AFAIK goes to a command centre in RAAF Base Edinburgh but again that data is not target quality which makes me think that it would not be something which could be shared via datalinks like other radar returns can, never mind what can be shared via CEC. What might be possible would be for someone in the JORN JCC to call/radio to a TF or some other asset that there might be something of interest and give an approximate location or bearing, so that another asset (like an AEW aircraft) could be tasked to take a look.

One should also reexamine the likely number of potential aircraft. When I mentioned a dozen fighters, I had been looking at the Spanish Armada's plans for JC1 and not the RAN's Canberra-class LHD which were based off that. From what I have come across, it does seem like the RAN vessels are slightly different, with less of an aviation focus which makes sense since the original Spanish plans were to use JC1 as a sort of backup carrier while their CVL Principe de Asturias was in refit or getting replaced. Now however, Spain has decommissioned their dedicated carrier and not commissioned a replacement as of yet. One example of the likely difference is that JC1 can carry up to 30 helicopters using the hangar and light vehicle deck, whilst it appears that a Canberra-class LHD can carry up to 18 both the hangar and light vehicle deck. This leads me to believe that a RAN LHD might only be able to embark perhaps eight F-35B's, which itself might be enough to maintain a CAP over a TF.

I feel some of the aviation expectations of the JC1 are more sales than reality.
Well done Spain!

That’s not to dismiss the designs ability to employ aircraft both fixed wing and rotary.
It’s still a very capable and flexible asset for its size.
18 helicopters in the hangar/ light vehicle deck is realistic and should still provide space for movement and operation.
8 to 10 parked on the starboard side of the flight deck also doable.
Still a sizable force!!!!!
Allow about two helicopters for the footprint of a F35b
Work the numbers and combinations with that math.
The challenge is the hangar at around 20 m wide.
Not really conducive to a lot of fixed wing.
Realistically about six or seven with some helicopters

Reality - if we can’t build a Arafura on time yet alone buy / build a supporting UAV let’s adjust our expectations for the F35 at sea
A nice to have only.

let’s get the unmanned thing happening for the fleet ASAP
Many sizes and shapes

cheers S

 

[hauritz]

I feel some of the aviation expectations of the JC1 are more sales than reality.
Well done Spain!

That’s not to dismiss the designs ability to employ aircraft both fixed wing and rotary.
It’s still a very capable and flexible asset for its size.
18 helicopters in the hangar/ light vehicle deck is realistic and should still provide space for movement and operation.
8 to 10 parked on the starboard side of the flight deck also doable.
Still a sizable force!!!!!
Allow about two helicopters for the footprint of a F35b
Work the numbers and combinations with that math.
The challenge is the hangar at around 20 m wide.
Not really conducive to a lot of fixed wing.
Realistically about six or seven with some helicopters

Reality - if we can’t build a Arafura on time yet alone buy / build a supporting UAV let’s adjust our expectations for the F35 at sea
A nice to have only.

let’s get the unmanned thing happening for the fleet ASAP
Many sizes and shapes

cheers S

Tend to put aircraft carriers into the, nice to have, category but realistically we would be looking at a 15 to 20 year project. Manpower is one of our biggest issues. Agree we need to concentrate on unmanned for the moment. They are cheaper, shorter delivery times and less manpower intensive.

For the life of me I can't understand why we cancelled plans to acquire Reaper UCAVs. We should reinstate the program immediately and even consider increasing the number.

 

[Todjaeger]

It's certainly a limitation.

Still it appears to be more capability than other nations who operate carriers. The E7 fleet could be expanded (at additional cost, at $300m+ a peice) or augmented. I'm not sure Australia could operate a carrier away and independently of its airforce and perform other missions in other theatres. If operating near singapore I imagine there would be some help from allies. Yes, overflight could be a concern, but again, I'm not sure we intend to against local support. MQ9 aren't cheap either, and would take up space, so if we are talking about 8-12 F-35B's on board, mq9s would have to be subtracted from that total. At least with the E7 they aren't dependant on the LHD meger resources to operate, and are by far the most capable AEW on the planet and offer no compromises.

If one looks at nations operating fixed-wing aircraft from ships and excludes Russia, India and China, then apart from Spain and Japan, all operate organic AEW from their aircraft carriers. The US and France operate the fixed wing E-2 Hawkeye, whilst Italy and the UK operate helicopter AEW aircraft based upon the AW101 Merlin. As a side note, prior to Spain decommissioning their dedicated CVL Principe de Asturias, they too had organic helicopter AEW embarked, based upon the Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King. If/when Spain decides to get more serious about fixed wing naval ops, then I would expect they will again field organic AEW, but it might have to wait for the Spanish Armada to get a more purpose-built ship for aviation. I would also expect that Japan, having just gotten back into operating carriers, will sometime in the near future look to also have organic AEW.

Frankly I think that the RAN would benefit from being able to provide an organic AEW capability any time it had vessels operating together in a TF, since AEW can extend the sensor footprint for the entire TF.

 

[seaspear]

Is it realistic to network R.A.N ships so that they can carry containerised missile systems so that the destroyers and frigates dont exhaust their stocks in engagement's ,this appears as a short term option to be potentially effective and within any budget constraints

Japan could licence produce Mk70 containerized missile launcher - Naval News

Lockheed Martin has revealed to the author that it is conducting preliminary discussions with Japanese counterparts regarding the licensed production of the Mk70, the company's latest containerized Vertical Launching System (VLS).

www.navalnews.com

https://news.usni.org/2024/01/18/army-activates-latest-land-based-sm-6-tomahawk-battery-based-on-navy-tech

 

[iambuzzard]

Is it realistic to network R.A.N ships so that they can carry containerised missile systems so that the destroyers and frigates dont exhaust their stocks in engagement's ,this appears as a short term option to be potentially effective and within any budget constraints

Japan could licence produce Mk70 containerized missile launcher - Naval News

Lockheed Martin has revealed to the author that it is conducting preliminary discussions with Japanese counterparts regarding the licensed production of the Mk70, the company's latest containerized Vertical Launching System (VLS).

www.navalnews.com

https://news.usni.org/2024/01/18/army-activates-latest-land-based-sm-6-tomahawk-battery-based-on-navy-tech

Can the Mk70 be quad packed with ESSM?

 

[Stampede]

If one looks at nations operating fixed-wing aircraft from ships and excludes Russia, India and China, then apart from Spain and Japan, all operate organic AEW from their aircraft carriers. The US and France operate the fixed wing E-2 Hawkeye, whilst Italy and the UK operate helicopter AEW aircraft based upon the AW101 Merlin. As a side note, prior to Spain decommissioning their dedicated CVL Principe de Asturias, they too had organic helicopter AEW embarked, based upon the Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King. If/when Spain decides to get more serious about fixed wing naval ops, then I would expect they will again field organic AEW, but it might have to wait for the Spanish Armada to get a more purpose-built ship for aviation. I would also expect that Japan, having just gotten back into operating carriers, will sometime in the near future look to also have organic AEW.

Frankly I think that the RAN would benefit from being able to provide an organic AEW capability any time it had vessels operating together in a TF, since AEW can extend the sensor footprint for the entire TF.

Sovereign AEW for a taskforce has appeal at distance from our coast I’m just not sure of the options
Manned AEW fixed wing denotes a reasonable sized aircraft taking off a commensurate sized ship. France’s medium sized aircraft carrier has had challenges so anything smaller looks problematic
Helicopters are a maybe, but you need good numbers for 24/7 coverage. Three to four
A lot of deck space for a niche platform.
Unmanned options I’m not familiar with but that realm maybe an area with potential.

Can see the need

Unsure of the solution

Cheers S

 

[Todjaeger]

Sovereign AEW for a taskforce has appeal at distance from our coast I’m just not sure of the options
Manned AEW fixed wing denotes a reasonable sized aircraft taking off a commensurate sized ship. France’s medium sized aircraft carrier has had challenges so anything smaller looks problematic
Helicopters are a maybe, but you need good numbers for 24/7 coverage. Three to four
A lot of deck space for a niche platform.
Unmanned options I’m not familiar with but that realm maybe an area with potential.

Can see the need

Unsure of the solution

Cheers S

Realistically if one want to maintain an AEW capability at sea, one is looking at four platforms (at least) for 24/7 coverage regardless of whether the platform is fixed or rotary winged.

Also, whilst the capability might be described as niche, it can be a very important niche given how much further AEW can extend the sensor footprint of a TF. Ship-mounted radars might not be able to detect an inbound UAV swarm flying at low altitude until it is within ~40 km due to the radar horizon, but if there is a AEW helicopter orbiting at ~4,000 m then the radar horizon would be more like 275 km. That much further potential detection range should provide more time for a response, which in turn should mean that there would be more potential options.

IMO it would also be worthwhile for future RAN vessels to be able to support greater numbers of embarked helicopters, including helicopters the size of the AW101, as well as the RAN possibly adopting examples of the AW101 for both lift and AEW roles.

 

[iambuzzard]

Realistically if one want to maintain an AEW capability at sea, one is looking at four platforms (at least) for 24/7 coverage regardless of whether the platform is fixed or rotary winged.

Also, whilst the capability might be described as niche, it can be a very important niche given how much further AEW can extend the sensor footprint of a TF. Ship-mounted radars might not be able to detect an inbound UAV swarm flying at low altitude until it is within ~40 km due to the radar horizon, but if there is a AEW helicopter orbiting at ~4,000 m then the radar horizon would be more like 275 km. That much further potential detection range should provide more time for a response, which in turn should mean that there would be more potential options.

IMO it would also be worthwhile for future RAN vessels to be able to support greater numbers of embarked helicopters, including helicopters the size of the AW101, as well as the RAN possibly adopting examples of the AW101 for both lift and AEW roles.

How AEW helos could the Canberra class accommodate?

 

[Todjaeger]

How AEW helos could the Canberra class accommodate?

If I understand the question correctly, then to answer how many AEW helicopters an LHD could embark would depend on what the base helicopter platform is. A Canberra-class helicopter hangar can normally fit eight medium-sized helicopters, but AFAIK the only Western AEW helicopters currently in service are based off the AW101 which I suspect would be considered a large helicopter. Now the Canberra-class flight deck can accommodate landing six medium helicopters like the Black Hawk, or four large helicopters like the CH-47 Chinook. No idea how many Chinook-sized helicopters would fit into the hangar, but one of the two aircraft elevators is rated to handle the CH-47 so I would anticipate at least a few Chinooks could be fitted into the hangar. I also tend to suspect that a CH-47 is a little larger (at least in most dimensions) so if AW101 AEW's were acquired then perhaps four could be embarked, albeit at the expense of the 'normal' helicopter complement.

OTOH if there was a different AEW helicopter configuration developed, or work done to provide the MH-60R with more of an AEW capability, then the number could be completely different.

 

[iambuzzard]

If I understand the question correctly, then to answer how many AEW helicopters an LHD could embark would depend on what the base helicopter platform is. A Canberra-class helicopter hangar can normally fit eight medium-sized helicopters, but AFAIK the only Western AEW helicopters currently in service are based off the AW101 which I suspect would be considered a large helicopter. Now the Canberra-class flight deck can accommodate landing six medium helicopters like the Black Hawk, or four large helicopters like the CH-47 Chinook. No idea how many Chinook-sized helicopters would fit into the hangar, but one of the two aircraft elevators is rated to handle the CH-47 so I would anticipate at least a few Chinooks could be fitted into the hangar. I also tend to suspect that a CH-47 is a little larger (at least in most dimensions) so if AW101 AEW's were acquired then perhaps four could be embarked, albeit at the expense of the 'normal' helicopter complement.

OTOH if there was a different AEW helicopter configuration developed, or work done to provide the MH-60R with more of an AEW capability, then the number could be completely different.

Thanks Todjaeger, that's exactly the answer I was after. If the MH-60R could be adapted for the role of AEW it could give the RAN the option of embarking one on one of the destroyers/frigates in lieu of ASW. Food for thought.

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks Todjaeger, that's exactly the answer I was after. If the MH-60R could be adapted for the role of AEW it could give the RAN the option of embarking one on one of the destroyers/frigates in lieu of ASW. Food for thought.

I recall reading about the MH-60R 'Romeo' when it was first undergoing testing in the US and over the Gulf of Mexico. It turned out that when at altitude, the APS-147 radar could also detect/track aerial targets as well as ground/sea surface ones. So there is at least some latent abilities there. Not sure what the max altitude an aerial object could be flying at and get detected, what the max detection range would be for the APS-147 searching for aerial returns, or how many contacts an MH-60R could process/track. OTOH it might be possible for a basic H-60 helicopter airframe to be modified to carry a Crowsnest system as used by the RN, or else have something similar developed. IIRC LockMart (now owners of Sikorsky) had proposed a multi-function system for the UK to fit to helicopters for AEW.

 

[devo99]

I think most laymen think the F35B's would be used to fight inland, take on the enemy, but my understanding of the carriers with Harriers was more for fleet defence, given no awacs, short range, limited weapons load. I don't think things change with the F35B. Does Australia really need such a capability? Would it be worth the money?

To steal a line from Admiral Sir Victor Smith, "My comment on this statement will be limited to one word and that is ‘Falklands’."