World Naval Balance in 2025?

[Tasman]

does a take off from a ski jump bring extra stress to the structure of the aircraft ? ( sorry for the question but I am not an engineer nor a pilot)


Also I heard Thai Navy is not using its carrier that much due to financial reasons, maybe they can sell to Australia?

A ski jump makes it easier for an aircraft to get airborne. It enables a higher takeoff weight, hence greater fuel and/or weapon load, and whilst I'm certainly no technical expert I presume it should reduce rather than increase any stresses.

The RAN is NOT in the market for an aircraft carrier so it would have no interest in the Thai carrier. The ADF will use its new LHDs for the deployment and support of the army (as well as civil tasks such as disaster relief). In the SW Pacific region it is confident that the use of armed helicopters like the Tiger will provide all the air support that is needed.

Of course this may change at some point in the future but at this stage VSTOL aircraft are not on the ADF's desired procurement list.

Tas

 

[Aussie Digger]

does a take off from a ski jump bring extra stress to the structure of the aircraft ? ( sorry for the question but I am not an engineer nor a pilot)


Also I heard Thai Navy is not using its carrier that much due to financial reasons, maybe they can sell to Australia?

Funnily enough, the Thai's bought that carrier after we gave them in excess of $1b cash in aid in the mid 90's...

They didn't pay anywhere near that much for it either...


The point being, Australia could easily afford to acquire a carrier or 2, plus a modern air component to go with it. Whether we could actually man them, is another question entirely as is our actual need for such.

If we decided to buy a carrier, I very much doubt it'd be a "third hand" "dock Queen" like the Chakri Naruebet...

Regards

AD

 

[swerve]

...
If we decided to buy a carrier, I very much doubt it'd be a "third hand" "dock Queen" like the Chakri Naruebet...

Regards

AD

And one which is far too small for the F-35B, having been designed around the Harrier.

 

[Lostfleet]

Why did Thai Navy required an aircraft carrier?

and Aussie Digger why do refer that carrier as the third hand? I thought it was specifically built for the Thai Navy or did they buy it second hand as well?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Why did Thai Navy required an aircraft carrier?

and Aussie Digger why do refer that carrier as the third hand? I thought it was specifically built for the Thai Navy or did they buy it second hand as well?

I understood that it was bought by Thailand from the Armada?

The Thai's intended it to be used as a "flagship" for their fleet, search and rescue duties and probably for limited maritime, strike and air defence operations.

Unfortunately the reality of funding and the cost of operating an aircraft carrier, has seen the vessel pretty much wasted, in my opinion...

 

[Lostfleet]

I thought the design was based on Principe de Asturias and it was built by the Spanish yards but never served on the Armada,

it is a shame to build such a ship and not use it properly,

how about the Spanish and the Italians, they both have small carriers at the moment but I did not hear them get involved at any actions except NATO exercises?

 

[Tasman]

I thought the design was based on Principe de Asturias and it was built by the Spanish yards but never served on the Armada,

it is a shame to build such a ship and not use it properly,

how about the Spanish and the Italians, they both have small carriers at the moment but I did not hear them get involved at any actions except NATO exercises?

You are correct about the design. Chakri Naruebet is basically a scaled down version of Principe de Austurias built in Spain for Thailand. As Swerve suggests it will almost certainly be too small to operate aircraft like the F-35B. The ship has rarely gone to sea and, according to Janes Fighting Ships, fixed wing flying has been restricted to shore bases.

Regarding the Spanish and Italian navies I think both are likely to draw on their experience with VSTOL operations from their light carriers and develop their aviation capabilities considerably during the next decade or two.

Tas

 

[Lostfleet]

if VSTOL aircraft become generally available, both F35 and Y141, how many aircraft carriers do you think will occupy the seas in the 2025?

 

[Galrahn]

I still believe we will see Australian super hornets flying off US aircraft carriers before we ever see F-35Bs flying off Australian LHDs.

It is one of handful of unspoken reasons in my mind that explains the push for Block II SH.

 

[Lostfleet]

So by 2025,

US will have F35s, Superhornets and V22 ( if you consider somewhat fixed-wing)

Russia - Su-33s Su25s? and of course Y-141 if they come on line

French will have Rafale and Super Etandards ( if they still fly) ( are there any plans to order F35s)

Royal Navy will order F35s

Spain and Italy - They have similar size carriers flying Harriers which they might continue flying them or order F35s ( if their carriers are capable for it)

Indian Navy will use Russian Aircraft ( Su-33, maybe Su-25?)

Brazilian Navy will either discard the carrier or get a new set of aircraft replacing A-4s ( maybe retiring F-18's ? too big?) but if I remember correctly they were going for building their own fighters maybe naval version of that.

China - Su-33 copies?

My assumption is that, in general we will have only 3 common types F18,F35,Su33 flying the carrier aviation squadrons,

we feel the days of many different types of aircraft are gone, and we just have to deal with only limited aircraft ( no more aircraft identification books with many pages to flip)

I wonder what will people discuss in 2025 for the future, I am assuming they will say by 2050 there will be only one aircraft type for carriers ( even the enemy will have the same aircraft)

If we come back to our main topic, besides what I listed above, do you think there will be different tpyes of aircraft flying on carriers ( not counting UAVs) in 2025?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

So by 2025,

US will have F35s, Superhornets and V22 ( if you consider somewhat fixed-wing)

And UCAV-N.

Russia - Su-33s Su25s? and of course Y-141 if they come on line

I doubt SU 25 has a future on russian falt tops. Upgradeing SU-33 to multirole capability is easier and more effecteive IMO.

French will have Rafale and Super Etandards ( if they still fly) ( are there any plans to order F35s)

Super entendards will be replaced by rafale by that time. There is NO WAY in hell France will buy F35C for their carriers when thay have spent that much on navalized rafale.

Spain and Italy - They have similar size carriers flying Harriers which they might continue flying them or order F35s ( if their carriers are capable for it)

They both have plans to buy F-35B IIRC to equip their pocket carrier fleet.

Indian Navy will use Russian Aircraft ( Su-33, maybe Su-25?)

The indian navy will not use SU 33, they will utilize MiG 29K which they have ordered for their Kiev.

China - Su-33 copies?

IIRC, PLAN ordered russian built SU 33's.

My assumption is that, in general we will have only 3 common types F18,F35,Su33 flying the carrier aviation squadrons,

That assumption would be wrong, you forgot rafale and MiG 29K. That makes 5 and if there are any lingereing harrier users (like thailand) that would make 6.

we feel the days of many different types of aircraft are gone, and we just have to deal with only limited aircraft ( no more aircraft identification books with many pages to flip)

I wonder what will people discuss in 2025 for the future, I am assuming they will say by 2050 there will be only one aircraft type for carriers ( even the enemy will have the same aircraft)

There will never be 1 platform equiping all navies. There will allways be competeing designers. For the next 25 years the numbers of naval fighters may have droped to 5 but after that time there will liley be many more unmanned platforms from many different designers. therefore in 2030 you might see 5 types on manned fighers and annother 5+ types of unmanned fighters on the same flat tops, so diversity should increase.

If we come back to our main topic, besides what I listed above, do you think there will be different tpyes of aircraft flying on carriers ( not counting UAVs) in 2025?

You have to count UCAV's becasue they will be doing the same exact thing as current aircraft, therefore the only difference will be the lack of a pilot.

 

[kato]

Brazil also still has its naval Skyhawks and the S-2 Trackers iirc (besides newer Super Etendards). Though those won't be in service in 2025 anymore of course, considering they're refurbished 30-year-old airframes.

Sure, Rafale would be an option there, but we could also see something entirely different by that time.

Oh, and don't forget the E-2C. Not the US ones, but the French ones should probably still be flying in 17 years.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I still believe we will see Australian super hornets flying off US aircraft carriers before we ever see F-35Bs flying off Australian LHDs.

It is one of handful of unspoken reasons in my mind that explains the push for Block II SH.

Well considering that virtually no new equipment would be needed for RAAF F/A-18F's to be on a nimitz class, then i would agree. F-35B's on LHD's need F-35B's, which cost planty. However baseing a squadron of aircraft on annother nations carrier is a very different thing to provideing your own fleet with organic air cover. Therefore, unless it comes with a "time share" agreement for the supercarrier (which i doubt ) I fail to see the direct connetion.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Brazil also still has its naval Skyhawks and the S-2 Trackers iirc (besides newer Super Etendards). Though those won't be in service in 2025 anymore of course, considering they're refurbished 30-year-old airframes.

Sure, Rafale would be an option there, but we could also see something entirely different by that time.

Oh, and don't forget the E-2C. Not the US ones, but the French ones should probably still be flying in 17 years.

You dont think they'll be upgraded to E2-D standard???

 

[kato]

Still the same airframe, no matter the electronics.

 

[Sea Toby]

I agree, we are more likely to see Aussie Hornets and Super Hornets flying off US aircraft carriers than we will ever see F-35Bs flying off the LHDs. And notice, that is not likely to happen.

As far as Thailand's carrier is concerned, Thailand never had any intentions to fly or buy Harriers. The original design was the US Navy's Sea Control Ship Admiral Zumwalt had planned, basically an ASW ship with helicopters. Like the British Invincibles, only the development of the Harriers led to the ski jump on the Spanish ship, and eventually carrying a few Harriers. An after thought.

I believe Thailand is more interested in the flight deck for helicopters, not necessarily ASW, but troop carrying. Similar to Australia and much like the British Ocean. I am sure if Thailand had waited several years, they probably rather have the smaller Italian amphibious flattops.

Frankly, if you want a good carrier, build one with more than a handful of aircraft. Notice the British have seen their limitations, and are going to build aircraft carriers much larger, the Queen Elizabeth class. Also notice, there isn't much difference in price between the Aussie's Canberra LHDs and the British Queen Elizabeths.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I agree, we are more likely to see Aussie Hornets and Super Hornets flying off US aircraft carriers than we will ever see F-35Bs flying off the LHDs. And notice, that is not likely to happen.

Never say never. We've invested in a real expiditionary capability but we havent got any air cover, therefore said expeditionary capability is rather limited.

As far as Thailand's carrier is concerned, Thailand never had any intentions to fly or buy Harriers. The original design was the US Navy's Sea Control Ship Admiral Zumwalt had planned, basically an ASW ship with helicopters. Like the British Invincibles, only the development of the Harriers led to the ski jump on the Spanish ship, and eventually carrying a few Harriers. An after thought.

I believe Thailand is more interested in the flight deck for helicopters, not necessarily ASW, but troop carrying. Similar to Australia and much like the British Ocean. I am sure if Thailand had waited several years, they probably rather have the smaller Italian amphibious flattops.

I have to agree with AD on this one, the vessel is a waste of money and time for the Thai's. Its not a great troop carrier due to the lack of a dock, its not a great AC carrier, however if utilized properly it could provide a task force with organic fighter cover which is pretty essential for blue water operations.

Frankly, if you want a good carrier, build one with more than a handful of aircraft. Notice the British have seen their limitations, and are going to build aircraft carriers much larger, the Queen Elizabeth class. Also notice, there isn't much difference in price between the Aussie's Canberra LHDs and the British Queen Elizabeths.

Were did you get those numbers from? IIRC the estimated cost (the actuall cost is classified AFAIK) for the QE class sits somewere between 3.5 & 4bn pounds, this does not cover their air groups which should be close to double that. Canberra class should cost about $2bn AUD. Conversion is usually 3 to 1 which makes the QE class worth $12bn AUD (without aircraft), thats 3 times the cost for the hulls.

Pocket carriers still have their place for those who can not afford a real carrier. The ability to move a full squadron of STOVL fighters and AEW helo's gives a small fleet real blue water capability and the ability to operate in the face of moderate air threats. That is a huge advancement over haveing no organic fighter cover & AEW at all, for less than half the price of a full sized carrier. True if you can afford it a real carrier is much more effitient, but reasonably sized pocket carries still have their place.