Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Bonza]

I never compared the BPE's as true Aircraft Carriers. As a matter of fact even large LHA's like the American Wasp Class. Could nor sustain large storie rates for any period of time without constant re-supply. Regardless, that doesn't make a small number of F-35B's as useless. Which, is likely why Spain is equiping its BPE's to operate F-35B's from the start.....

Actually, you did make a comparison to American LHAs when you said:

Well, the USN operates just 6 Harriers from its much larger LHA's and LHD's. Yet, believes even those small numbers are worth the cost.

I realise it was a capability comparison rather than a platform comparison but the relevance of such a capability is at the heart of the issue, is it not?

You say that others won't even consider the possibility of STOVL aircraft operating from the Canberra class, but don't you think that, with everything people have said here, a compelling case for NOT operating said aircraft can also be made?

You're perfectly welcome to your opinion but I wouldn't write others off as "not even considering the possibility" when they might simply have come to a different conclusion to you...and it's a conclusion, I might add, with which the RAN seems to agree.

Fair enough if you're talking about the future rather than the present, but again, I think the heart of the issue is whether or not the capability is worth it, rather than whether or not it's possible.

I'm not saying F-35Bs operating from the Canberra would be "useless". I'm asking, how useful would they be? Given they wouldn't be able to sustain independent operations for long without massive resupply, how effective do you think they'd be in establishing air cover over a conflict zone?

 

[Crusader2000]

[

QUOTE=Bonza;182160]Actually, you did make a comparison to American LHAs when you said:

Sorry, you are taking my words out of context. The whole point was several nation operate a limited number (6-12) of STOVL Aircraft from various platforms. (Carriers, LHA's, LHD's, etc.) Which, I listed several examples.

I realise it was a capability comparison rather than a platform comparison but the relevance of such a capability is at the heart of the issue, is it not?

The capability of the F-35B is at the heart of the issue. As it would greatly increase the flexibility and capability of the BPE's. Which, is likely why the US and Spain will operate such types from there respective LHD's.

You say that others won't even consider the possibility of STOVL aircraft operating from the Canberra class, but don't you think that, with everything people have said here, a compelling case for NOT operating said aircraft can also be made?

Sure you can make a case for not operating STOVL Aircraft from Australia's forthcoming LHD's. Yet, I personally believe its a far far weaker case.

As a matter of fact some have made the case. That Aircraft Carriers aren't really needed at all. That advance Destroyers and Submarines can do the job. Yet, that doesn't mean I subscribe to that theory either. Come to think of it Russia, China, and s few other nations made that same argument for decades. Only to reverse course 180 degree over the last several years. Building Carriers of their own.

You're perfectly welcome to your opinion but I wouldn't write others off as "not even considering the possibility" when they might simply have come to a different conclusion to you...and it's a conclusion, I might add, with which the RAN seems to agree.

Fair enough if you're talking about the future rather than the present, but again, I think the heart of the issue is whether or not the capability is worth it, rather than whether or not it's possible.

Well, it sure sounds like some are saying "never" to me? BTW I was just expressing my opinion like everyone else.

I'm not saying F-35Bs operating from the Canberra would be "useless". I'm asking, how useful would they be? Given they wouldn't be able to sustain independent operations for long without massive resupply, how effective do you think they'd be in establishing air cover over a conflict zone?

[/QUOTE]

Well, you must not consider Harriers operating from US LHA's/LHD's or Spainish LHD's as being effective then. Also, like I mentioned earlier. How about the 6 Skyhawks operating from the Sao Paulo or 12-Flankers (Su-33's)operating from the Kuznetsov as being worth while either....

Another point as what is useful. If, the Royal Australian Troops are landed on a hostile beach. Would you rather have STOVL Aircraft and Helocopter flying in support or just Helocopters???

Personally, I have no doubt what the "TROOPS" would prefer!

 

[Sea Toby]

Without the Canberra having the proper carrier facilities, such as fuel and bomb bunkerage, how long do you think she would last against a Cavour, or a new Vikrant which can put up more aircraft and sustain them longer? The few fighters the Canberra could support without the proper carrier facilities would be outnumbered considerably, at least fhree to one, in any battle. Frankly, the Canberra would barely put up any defensive force, whereas the others could not only produce a defensive force but also an all important offensive force....

Four fighters won't defeat twelve fighters, or twenty fighters.... And you will be lucky to support four fighters with the Canberra as is.... The costs of those four fighters could supply another air tanker or two, which could support many more aircraft over any Southwest Pacific battle, whether at sea or on land....

Simply put, the economics of any naval fighters with the Canberra class LHD isn't worth it.... NEVER WILL EITHER!!!!!!

Its a moot point anyway. The RAAF will fight for every fighter. The politics of the situation, much less the economics, will defeat any Aussie naval fighter aircraft.... No matter how much you want them.... My, my, you can't even provide sufficient reasons to buy any either.... other than you want them....

 

[Crusader2000]

Without the Canberra having the proper carrier facilities, such as fuel and bomb bunkerage, how long do you think she would last against a Cavour, or a new Vikrant which can put up more aircraft and sustain them longer? The few fighters the Canberra could support without the proper carrier facilities would be outnumbered considerably, at least fhree to one, in any battle. Frankly, the Canberra would barely put up any defensive force, whereas the others could not only produce a defensive force but also an all important offensive force....

Four fighters won't defeat twelve fighters, or twenty fighters.... And you will be lucky to support four fighters with the Canberra as is.... The costs of those four fighters could supply another air tanker or two, which could support many more aircraft over any Southwest Pacific battle, whether at sea or on land....

Simply put, the economics of any naval fighters with the Canberra class LHD isn't worth it.... NEVER WILL EITHER!!!!!!

Sorry, we are not comparing a Spanish San Juan with the Italian Cavour. Anymore than we would compare the USS Wasp with the FNS Charles de Gaulle. What we are comparing is the added benefit of a small number of STOVL Aircraft vs none at all...............


Your trying to debate Apples and Oranges. Which, is not what we are discussing here.

 

[Sea Toby]

Sorry, we are not comparing a Spanish San Juan with the Italian Cavour. Anymore than we would compare the USS Wasp with the FNS Charles de Gaulle. What we are comparing is the added benefit of a small number of STOVL Aircraft vs none at all...............


Your trying to debate Apples and Oranges. Which, is not what we are discussing here.

One more air tanker could support many more fighter aircraft over any Southwest Pacific battle, whether at sea or on land..... than any four naval fighters based on a LHD....

EAT THOSE WORDS? PROVE ME WRONG!

 

[Crusader2000]

One more air tanker could support many more fighter aircraft over any Southwest Pacific battle, whether at sea or on land..... than any four naval fighters based on a LHD....

EAT THOSE WORDS? PROVE ME WRONG!

The Pacific is a "VAST" region and one that is not going to be covered by tactical fighters alone! Regardless, of the Tanker Support as pilots can only stay in a cockpit so long.

As a matter of fact I doubt land based aircraft would be available in many cases due to the extreme ranges involved.

BTW The likely number of F-35B's operated from the Australia's LHD's. Would likely be six or more..............not four.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Again we are talking about the the future. (10 years of more) All I am saying is I see the needs and believe its very likely at some point. While, others won't even consider it a possibility...........


Funny, many say the same thing about South Korea and Japan. Personally, I believe the former two and Australia will all receive F-35B's at some point. Especially, considering the Military build-up in China and the current Arms Race in the Pacific Region.

Our military planning has been done to 2030. So unless there is some significant change in posture amongst our neighbours - or a shift in the threat matrix., we're not buying fighters to run off carriers.

 

[Crusader2000]

Our military planning has been done to 2030. So unless there is some significant change in posture amongst our neighbours - or a shift in the threat matrix., we're not buying fighters to run off carriers.

Should we go back 31 years and see what today's prediction were back then.............

 

[Bonza]

The capability of the F-35B is at the heart of the issue. As it would greatly increase the flexibility and capability of the BPE's. Which, is likely why the US and Spain will operate such types from there respective LHD's.

No, I disagree completely. I'm not questioning the capability of the F-35B - I'm questioning the capability of the Canberra class to support a useful number of aircraft, and the capability of the RAN to support a Canberra configured for such a role and engaged in expeditionary warfare.

Sure you can make a case for not operating STOVL Aircraft from Australia's forthcoming LHD's. Yet, I personally believe its a far far weaker case.

As a matter of fact some have made the case. That Aircraft Carriers aren't really needed at all. That advance Destroyers and Submarines can do the job. Yet, that doesn't mean I subscribe to that theory either. Come to think of it Russia, China, and s few other nations made that same argument for decades. Only to reverse course 180 degree over the last several years. Building Carriers of their own.

What does this have to do with what I'm questioning here? I'm not saying aircraft carriers are obsolete, I'm questioning the suitability of a specific vessel in the carrier role.

Well, you must not consider Harriers operating from US LHA's/LHD's or Spainish LHD's as not being effective then. Also, like I mentioned earlier. How about the 6 Skyhawks operating from the Sao Paulo or 12-Flankers (Su-33's)operating from the Kuznetsov as being worth while either....

I'm going to give you a bit of advice here: if you want to maintain a reasonable discussion, putting words into people's mouths is not a good idea. So please don't start on that "if you believe x, then you must surely believe y" nonsense.

I might point out again that you're making comparisons to the US Navy, something you just finished telling me you DIDN'T do.

The capability of the SU-33s operating off Russia's carrier is hard to gauge, considering the marked lack of flight operations. Wouldn't you agree?

Another point as what is useful. If, the Royal Australian Troops are landed on a hostile beach. Would you rather have STOVL Aircraft and Helocopter flying in support or just Helocopters???

Personally, I have no doubt what the "TROOPS" would prefer!

Oh please. You just said in this very same post that you're "just expressing your opinion" and now you tell me you know what the troops want? Have you thought about what the troops would think of all the equipment that was made unavailable due to the need to support a limited air cover force with fuel and ordnance?

Also you seem to think that landing on a hostile beach is something that, without air cover, would just go ahead regardless of casualties. Don't you think that the operation would be planned around having air cover of some kind as one of its requirements? Whether it's via allied forces or arranging operations such that available air power can be utilized, the RAN isn't going to say "bugger, oh well, we're going in anyway"!

 

[riksavage]

No, I disagree completely. I'm not questioning the capability of the F-35B - I'm questioning the capability of the Canberra class to support a useful number of aircraft, and the capability of the RAN to support a Canberra configured for such a role and engaged in expeditionary warfare.



What does this have to do with what I'm questioning here? I'm not saying aircraft carriers are obsolete, I'm questioning the suitability of a specific vessel in the carrier role.



I'm going to give you a bit of advice here: if you want to maintain a reasonable discussion, putting words into people's mouths is not a good idea. So please don't start on that "if you believe x, then you must surely believe y" nonsense.

I might point out again that you're making comparisons to the US Navy, something you just finished telling me you DIDN'T do.

The capability of the SU-33s operating off Russia's carrier is hard to gauge, considering the marked lack of flight operations. Wouldn't you agree?



Oh please. You just said in this very same post that you're "just expressing your opinion" and now you tell me you know what the troops want? Have you thought about what the troops would think of all the equipment that was made unavailable due to the need to support a limited air cover force with fuel and ordnance?

Also you seem to think that landing on a hostile beach is something that, without air cover, would just go ahead regardless of casualties. Don't you think that the operation would be planned around having air cover of some kind as one of its requirements? Whether it's via allied forces or arranging operations such that available air power can be utilized, the RAN isn't going to say "bugger, oh well, we're going in anyway"!

USMC completed a study reference STOVL advantages over fixed wing for carrier operations based on smaller platforms, Above and beyond bunkerage issues the primary factor is sortie rates. For the small carrier's to be effective you need to guarantee coverage by a minimum amount of airframes over a 24hr period for sustained lengths of time. This means any military planner must establish what is the minimum number of aircraft I need to guarantee CAP for the duration of hostilities (I think it was at least nine, based on a flight of three being airborne at any one time). If your carrier can't facilitate an established minimum number then what's the point of making the vessel STOVL capable in the first place?

One could reduce the requirement to have two airborne, two on standby and two in maintenance, thus reducing the number to six F35B's, but this would be cutting it thin in high tempo operations over a hostile beachhead.

 

[Crusader2000]

No, I disagree completely. I'm not questioning the capability of the F-35B - I'm questioning the capability of the Canberra class to support a useful number of aircraft, and the capability of the RAN to support a Canberra configured for such a role and engaged in expeditionary warfare.

The Canberra Class is just a Australian version of the Spanish BPE. Which, was designed from the start to operate F-35B's and in the Expeditionary Warfare Role. Personally, I don't see how its worth while in the case of Spain. Yet, would be somehow lacking in the case of Australia??? Sorry, you haven't made you case in my opinion.

What does this have to do with what I'm questioning here? I'm not saying aircraft carriers are obsolete, I'm questioning the suitability of a specific vessel in the carrier role.

I have never suggested that the Canberra Class should be used in a traditional Carrier Role. I was just simply expressing the added benefit of operating even a small number of F-35B's from a LHA/LHD.

I'm going to give you a bit of advice here: if you want to maintain a reasonable discussion, putting words into people's mouths is not a good idea. So please don't start on that "if you believe x, then you must surely believe y" nonsense.

Point well taken.............Yet, I think you've put a few words in my mouth. For example I never suggested that the Canberra Class should be used or would be used in a conventional Carrier Role.

I might point out again that you're making comparisons to the US Navy, something you just finished telling me you DIDN'T do.

I just pointed out that American LHA's/LHD's carry 6 STOVL Aircaft. As do Spanish Navy LHD's.......At no time was I making a direct comparison between the capabilities of the USN and its LHA's/LHD's vs RAN/LHD's. Again the point is other "navies" consider even a small number of STOVL worth while.

The capability of the SU-33s operating off Russia's carrier is hard to gauge, considering the marked lack of flight operations. Wouldn't you agree?

Well, accurate information on Russian Flight Operations from the Kuznetsov is hard to come by.........Yet, Russia is very cash strapped. So, I have little doubt they're very limited at the moment.

Oh please. You just said in this very same post that you're "just expressing your opinion" and now you tell me you know what the troops want? Have you thought about what the troops would think of all the equipment that was made unavailable due to the need to support a limited air cover force with fuel and ordnance?

Oh please, I'll compare any amount of Ground Equipment vs an F-35B anyday of the week. Really, the trade off would be small. You act like 6 F-35B's would take the place of over half of vehicles carried by a LHD.

BTW When was the last time a M-1 Tank or a 155mm Howitzer shot down a plane......nfloorl:

Also you seem to think that landing on a hostile beach is something that, without air cover, would just go ahead regardless of casualties. Don't you think that the operation would be planned around having air cover of some kind as one of its requirements? Whether it's via allied forces or arranging operations such that available air power can be utilized, the RAN isn't going to say "bugger, oh well, we're going in anyway"!

Funny, that you just spoke about putting words in other peoples mouth! Nonetheless, I never said or even implied anything of the kind.

Regardless, if Australia doesn't purchase F-35B's. In all likely hood it would need Allied Support to perform such a mission. As land bases in many cases would be out of reach. Personally, I think Australia should pull its own weight.

 

[Crusader2000]

USMC completed a study reference STOVL advantages over fixed wing for carrier operations based on smaller platforms, Above and beyond bunkerage issues the primary factor is sortie rates. For the small carrier's to be effective you need to guarantee coverage by a minimum amount of airframes over a 24hr period for sustained lengths of time. This means any military planner must establish what is the minimum number of aircraft I need to guarantee CAP for the duration of hostilities (I think it was at least nine, based on a flight of three being airborne at any one time). If your carrier can't facilitate an established minimum number then what's the point of making the vessel STOVL capable in the first place?

One could reduce the requirement to have two airborne, two on standby and two in maintenance, thus reducing the number to six F35B's, but this would be cutting it thin in high tempo operations over a hostile beachhead.

Depends on the threats of course..............Regardless, this debate is about the usefulness of a small number of STOVL Aircraft. (i.e. F-35B's) Being used in support of Ground Troops going ashore. Not a LHA or LHD being used in a Conventional Carrier Role.

 

[Sea Toby]

Where in the Southwest Pacific is an island anywhere not within range of another island or airport considering air tanker support? Where? I can't think of any..... And that is the whole point.....Keep in mind the new air tankers Australia has bought can fly non-stop from Hawaii to Australia....

 

[Crusader2000]

Where in the Southwest Pacific is an island anywhere not within range of another island or airport considering air tanker support? Where? I can't think of any..... And that is the whole point.....Keep in mind the new air tankers Australia has bought can fly non-stop from Hawaii to Australia....

Sure Tankers and Bombers can easily fly from Australia to Hawaii................Yet, you will never see a fighter mission at such distances. As I said before a pilot can only stay in the cockpit so looong!


BTW Australia has fought in many conflicts outside of the Southwest Pacific. Including the current ones like Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[battlensign]

One more air tanker could support many more fighter aircraft over any Southwest Pacific battle, whether at sea or on land..... than any four naval fighters based on a LHD....

EAT THOSE WORDS? PROVE ME WRONG!

Okay.........invitation accepted!

1) The geographic limitations of your 'solution' , which also presupposes the operation being carried our................. what if the threat is further afield? Thank GOD the brits were able to a wage an Air Dominance campaign from Ascension Island using their tankers to maintain a reliable and persistent CAP!

Australia historially sends its forces in support of larger conflicts and allies in a coalition setting. I am also unaware of any case in which Australia has individually fought a war with another country. These two factors indicate that we may not be merely supporting capabilities we possess and that the conflicts were are involved in are likely to be further afield - unless something else has already gone horribly wrong.

2) My understanding is that 8 a/c are suffiicient to maintain a basic CAP or CS rotation. Your concerns about bunkerage are interesting but wouldn't RAN helo's already require bunkerage for torpedoes and potentially helfire or other Anti-surface weapons? So what you really mean is that there would be a need for a strong resupply system, right? Sounds like the same problem your Airforce pilots have in requiring tanker support...........so why not 3/4 AORs in the fleet? Higher sortie rates and less airframe hours used in transit? What provides more utility; a 6th and 7th MRTT or another AOR to support F-35s.

3) An RAN Fleet Air Arm squadron has more benefits than merely being 4 deployed a/c on a hybrid harrier carrier/LHD. Air Defence training of the fleet is a task that the Air Force does not rate as a particularly large priority- and nor should it be - with Basic Flight Training, Conversion Training, Air Dominance Training and Combat Air Suport Training etc..........and the attack profiles that actually prove useful for the Fleet require Fast Movers - whose time is precious. Even if the profiles flown by other aircraft were as effective or only slightly less so, there still remains the issue that without the All Weather Radars the RAAF Hawks have their training missions frequently cancelled as a result of weather conditions. Even a reserve hybrid unit of RAAF and RAN pilots could solve this training requirment for the fleet (and potentially act as an OP FOR in RAAF Training missions)

4) Nobody said anything about engaging in Carrier versus Carrier warfare...........that might be something we can leave to our friends...........what I am saying is that in 1980 when our population was only 14 million we had a light carrier and that with around 22 million now the only difference is the lack of interest from Australian Defence planers and more importantly the ANU SDSC educated DOD. And what of 2049 when the population is around 35million....?

Brett.

P.S I probably should add the caveat that these concepts only work with a third LHD - otherwise, as others have pointed out, the loss of primary amphibious capability would be too great.

 

[the road runner]

Where in the Southwest Pacific is an island anywhere not within range of another island or airport considering air tanker support? Where? I can't think of any..... And that is the whole point.....Keep in mind the new air tankers Australia has bought can fly non-stop from Hawaii to Australia....

Thats what i was thinking when i was reading this forum,an Island is very difficult to sink.....

I like the idea of bare bases,that are used when needed.Dont get me wrong,i also like the idea of having an Aircraft Carrier to provide offensive punch(thats what our mates in the USA will provide if ever needed by Oz).

As other members have stated on this forum,there is no use getting an Aircraft carrier at the cost of other weapons and platforms that are needed by the ADF now.I also agree with this point...

No carriers for Australia,i would rather see another Canberra class or 4th AWD,maybee even a few more JSF and missles like SM-3,Tomahawk, ect.....

Regards

 

[gf0012-aust]

Should we go back 31 years and see what today's prediction were back then.............

My very clear point was that modern militaries plan ahead and plan for contingencies. we all have plans in the drawer which are rolled out to deal with unpredictable events.

thats how leaders of countries are able to enact quick force delivery in emergencies.

unlike the internet, we plan for the most unlikely and with reasonable care. we don't go out and buy gear on a maybe or a whim.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Depends on the threats of course..............Regardless, this debate is about the usefulness of a small number of STOVL Aircraft. (i.e. F-35B's) Being used in support of Ground Troops going ashore. Not a LHA or LHD being used in a Conventional Carrier Role.

a flight of fighters is a logistic embuggerance, its not effective across a number of vectors.

you either do it properly, or you're wasting the public purse on a piece of symbolism that in real terms is militarily ineffective

 

[Bonza]

The Canberra Class is just a Australian version of the Spanish BPE. Which, was designed from the start to operate F-35B's and in the Expeditionary Warfare Role. Personally, I don't see how its worth while in the case of Spain. Yet, would be somehow lacking in the case of Australia??? Sorry, you haven't made you case in my opinion.

But what case do I have to make? You're the one proposing something so far removed from RAN decisions and public statements, so I'd say the onus is on you to make YOUR case.

Point well taken.............Yet, I think you've put a few words in my mouth. For example I never suggested that the Canberra Class should be used or would be used in a conventional Carrier Role.

But what you're suggesting with regards to air cover operations in support of expeditionary warfare...that doesn't sound like a conventional carrier role to you?

I just pointed out that American LHA's/LHD's carry 6 STOVL Aircaft. As do Spanish Navy LHD's.......At no time was I making a direct comparison between the capabilities of the USN and its LHA's/LHD's vs RAN/LHD's. Again the point is other "navies" consider even a small number of STOVL worth while.

But you are making a direct comparison in terms of aircraft numbers determining capability. If we're going to compare aircraft numbers, can we compare relative logistics? Bunkerage, ordnance, resupply? All things that determine capability to an enormous extent?

Oh please, I'll compare any amount of Ground Equipment vs an F-35B anyday of the week. Really, the trade off would be small. You act like 6 F-35B's would take the place of over half of vehicles carried by a LHD.

I wasn't thinking about ground equipment, I was thinking helicopters. Fuel carriage for fast jets means far less fuel available for the choppers. Which means less transportation for troops, less casualty evacuation, less cargo air lift capacity, etc etc.

BTW When was the last time a M-1 Tank or a 155mm Howitzer shot down a plane......

It's clear we're not going to get anywhere with this discussion mate. I can only plead with you to please consider the relative logistics of what you're suggesting. Otherwise, have a good one.

 

[OPSSG]

Where in the Southwest Pacific is an island anywhere not within range of another island or airport considering air tanker support? Where? I can't think of any..... And that is the whole point.....Keep in mind the new air tankers Australia has bought can fly non-stop from Hawaii to Australia....

Sure Tankers and Bombers can easily fly from Australia to Hawaii................Yet, you will never see a fighter mission at such distances. As I said before a pilot can only stay in the cockpit so looong!

While I can't speak with authority for the RAAF, I pretty sure that you are wrong, when viewed in a certain context. BTW, the Singapore air force does plan for and has the ability to conduct the retrieval of our fighters from Continental United States via multiple mid-air refueling (in the event that Singapore is subject to an attack). There is no reason why Australia can't do long range missions and I fully expect that they have this capability for long range missions. For very, very long missions, pilots are know to have flown with 'adult diapers'. So while it is not comfortable, it can be and has been done.

Please take a chill pill and take a moment to reflect on the other posts, rather than just react. Let us engage in an exchange of ideas rather than just defending prior preconceived notions.