Redlands18
Well-Known Member
How the 18,000 extra personnel is going to be divided up is really a discussion for the ADF thread as it is getting OT, because there is no publicly declared intention to get Carriers at this time.
Fantasy RAN thread (Carriers only)
- Thread starter Anthony_B_78
- Start date
- Status
I don't understand the response
What have I said that was unfriendly or disrespectful.
I have not been attacked another poster or used unacceptable language.
I suggested an alternative to the RAN thread as the recent conversations were going into the LHD alternative thread.
This was accommodated; yet still I have refrained for entering into the F35 B debate and suggestions of larger carrier alternatives.
I have kept the recent conversation purely in line with the inventory we have today, both in terms of ships and helicopters.
No fantasy's just options for use over and above what seems a narrow fixation of usage.
I get crawl walk and run for the introduction of our LHD's and those who use them, but I also get that we have ditched our major submarine program to go nuclear,formed AUKUS and have a pending defence review which no doubt will be reflective in outcome re the language used for it's incarnation. It will be far reaching no doubt!
As apart of the review, I'd suggest all platforms within the ADF will be scrutinised and reassessed for current and future use.
The LHD's will be no different.
If one of the uses of the LHD as I proposed is as a special forces carrier, its because its reflective of the recent reality of the value of special forces.
Two decades of recent operations have highlighted there capability.
The fact it has been in distant lands is neither here nor there, If there is such a contingency in our local maritime region they will be a go to response.
They will be first ; IFV,Tanks and other "stuff" will follow depending on the level of escalation.
So if an LHD with light forces is batshitness, be mindful of what has happened in the last few decades re PNG,Fiji,Bougainville,the Solomans,East Timor...............How did we respond? How would we respond in the future?
Also be mindful of the other Island nation dots in the region and their challenges.
Then step a notch if any go pear shaped and seriously kinetic.
Take it a step further and start to look at the wide range of contingency's large nations states present with their respective defence forces,not to forget the bigger challenge of a hostile super power utilising some of those subservient Island dots to cater for their needs.
Our LHD's will be an important asset providing a myriad of options as part of the other capabilities valued within the ADF.
One of those options no doubt will be landing and extracting light forces. Anything from safeguarding foreign nationals in trouble to infiltration and strike.
Who knows, they may even be used as is currently planned.
These LHD's are very flexible ships................Their potential needs to be explored with open eyes.
We need to stop pigeon holing our assets.
A LCH can do survey work, A mine hunter can be a patrol boat, a ANZAC can be a off shore patrol boat etc............ Not ideal, but you work with what you have.
So if you want to know what we will use the LHD's for in the next conflict.
I'll tell you.....................................................What ever we want to!
Because at that time and place, prudence and practicality will win out and CONOPS will be nothing but ink on a page chucked in a bin.
Regards S
I am not sure if this is feasible or outright fantasy (prepared for enforced holiday) but could the ramps on the Canberra class be removed and consider a cats and traps per R.N consideration
Cats, traps and UAS – the Royal Navy considers options for carrier-launched drones | Navy Lookout
The U.S.N is likely to be using more drones off its aircraft carriers in the future some of these might be viewed for the use on the Canberra class without having to reinvent the wheel tanker aircraft flown from such could refuel aircraft providing coverage over ships
The U.S. Navy Is Finally Getting Carrier Drones. It Only Took 60 Years. (forbes.com)
I realise reconfiguring the ships are expensive but building new ones a lot more so, having a capability added does not require its continued use in that role since these assets (drones) can be added or removed as required
Cats, traps and UAS – the Royal Navy considers options for carrier-launched drones | Navy Lookout
The U.S.N is likely to be using more drones off its aircraft carriers in the future some of these might be viewed for the use on the Canberra class without having to reinvent the wheel tanker aircraft flown from such could refuel aircraft providing coverage over ships
The U.S. Navy Is Finally Getting Carrier Drones. It Only Took 60 Years. (forbes.com)
I realise reconfiguring the ships are expensive but building new ones a lot more so, having a capability added does not require its continued use in that role since these assets (drones) can be added or removed as required
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Could be it done? Perhaps... but I would suggest looking at why they were not removed from the design by Australia prior to construction. IIRC the reason given was that whilst removal of the ski ramp (with no planned role in RAN/ADF service) was decided against, because of the potential risks involved as well as the removal would force the entire design to be re-examined to ensure stability. Again, IIRC had the ski ramp been deleted prior to construction, the flight deck would have had an extra landing spot for a helicopter.
Removing a ship structure which is integrated into the overall hull design, and is also significant enough that the mass has an impact on the vessel's stability and trim is no small matter. Get the redesign (either detailed design work or just dockyard modification) wrong and the modified vessel becomes drastically less capable due to safety limits.
Sorry, you seem to have mistaken my reply for some sort of attack.
This thread will be closed soon, regardless of how nice or how brilliant peoples posts or ideas are. The concept is to let people discuss, who may not be aware of previous discussions or issues. Or if there has been any change. Ultimately however, people will likely come to the conclusion why there isn't a carrier program in the ADF. Purge their baggage.
The RAN carrier thing is a perpetual discussion, endless pages about a capability we have no active project pursuing. For years this comes out of nowhere and pollutes discussions. The same discussion occurs a thousand times and never changes.
Even more frustratingly, people become platform fixated, and much like upgrading the F-111, it will never happen. Despite being buried, wing spars broken and gutted, there are people today who put forward upgrading and reactivating the F-111 like its a real thing. Like reactivating Iowa Battleships. Or buying F-22's.
Everything becomes platform centric.
But what is the need, what role? What do we give up and how long does it take to bring the capability into service. You look at what capabilities you need, then what can be done to provide those capabilities.
IMO talk about and look at all the crazy ideas you want till the end of the week. Superhornets operating STOBAR off the LHD's, building and operating a QE carrier as CATOBAR, modifying the LHD to be bigger and acquiring a third one. Or 10. Building a conventional charles de gaulle
Agree its no small matter and perhaps there was insufficient cost benefit but if it was to be considered with other capabilities perhaps a feasibility study is warranted a modest aviation capability would be the cheapest option compared to bells and whistles carriers by a long magnitude
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
As I understand it, is was less of a concern about a cost benefit, and much more a concern about the detailed design being compromised. If that much mass, that high up was removed from the bow and fore portions of the vessel, then mass throughout the rest of the ship would need to get moved around internally to compensate. I do not know, but I do suspect that the trim of a vessel like an LHD, which contains a well dock aft, has to pay somewhat more than ordinary attention to trim so that well dock and attached areas of the vessel do not flood more than expected, or when they are not supposed to. Having a vessel which suddenly has significantly less displacement forward is likely to see bow and forward sections rise up further above the waterline, and potentially (buoyancy dependent) could see the draught aft increase. With those kinds of potential risks, I can see why the RAN might have decided that the risk was not worth both the costs to do the redesign properly, as well as the potential risk should errors occur, just to get an extra bit of space on the flight deck and add an additional helicopter landing spot.
This paragraph would have no doubt contained SSN's in it 12 months ago.
Things change, requirements change and spending levels certainly change, especially in a global risk environment like we are currently manoeuvring through.
Before this thread is closed I think it is worth considering exactly what extra capabilities would be bought to the table with a new carrier. I note for example the the USN is putting more emphasis on using onboard tanker aircraft. The reason for this is that it simply could be too dangerous to operate an aircraft carrier too close to the action anymore. To me the main purpose of a carrier was always to base aircraft as close as possible to the theatre of operations. Now days that might be suicidal.
I can still see a purpose for the US and to a lesser extent China operating carriers since they have global ambitions. Australia area of concern is much more regional. Patrol aircraft, fast jets, UAVs, tankers, stand off weapons, and assorted naval equipment would give Australia a useful grab bag of capabilities for dealing with most problems it is likely to face.
I can still see a purpose for the US and to a lesser extent China operating carriers since they have global ambitions. Australia area of concern is much more regional. Patrol aircraft, fast jets, UAVs, tankers, stand off weapons, and assorted naval equipment would give Australia a useful grab bag of capabilities for dealing with most problems it is likely to face.
Sierra Mike
Member
The ramp is structural... so removal would have meant CoA/RAN taking design responsibility for the change, a complete recertification of the hull and all the risks to budget and schedule that come with a significant structural design change... all for one additional helo pad and removal of any potential future STOL or STOVOL fixed wing capability I am glad the ramp remains.
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.
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.
Whilst I’m obviously no Admiral, I see the issue of a carrier as a bit of a distraction in the RAN context.
proliferation of submarines exacerbate the requirement for ASW escorts.
carriers cannot safely operate without escorts.
without concurrent USN or larger partner operations enhancing ASW capability the possession of a carrier is probably moot.
edit - Historical precedence as seen by Argentinian Navy in Falklands war.
I suspect that even in the RAN context, excepting ASW helicopter availability, the lack of a ranged shipborne ASROC-esque capability also limits RAN effectiveness to do this, & we can expect nothing from our obvious immediate co-invested partner NZ.
whilst island hopping was a defining feature of WW2 pacific theatre, until the submarine threat is dealt with and operations can be conducted with confidence, then influence will default to remote measures (or via air).
considering the greater imperative requirements for continental supply and slaving of assets to escort duty (hello to the B of Atlantic), I only see LHDs operating within those escorted packages and operating as ASW helo carrier platforms.
….. BTW how is our production of sonar bouys going?
proliferation of submarines exacerbate the requirement for ASW escorts.
carriers cannot safely operate without escorts.
without concurrent USN or larger partner operations enhancing ASW capability the possession of a carrier is probably moot.
edit - Historical precedence as seen by Argentinian Navy in Falklands war.
I suspect that even in the RAN context, excepting ASW helicopter availability, the lack of a ranged shipborne ASROC-esque capability also limits RAN effectiveness to do this, & we can expect nothing from our obvious immediate co-invested partner NZ.
whilst island hopping was a defining feature of WW2 pacific theatre, until the submarine threat is dealt with and operations can be conducted with confidence, then influence will default to remote measures (or via air).
considering the greater imperative requirements for continental supply and slaving of assets to escort duty (hello to the B of Atlantic), I only see LHDs operating within those escorted packages and operating as ASW helo carrier platforms.
….. BTW how is our production of sonar bouys going?
Last edited:
The suggestion I was trying to make re assessment of ramp is the use of the Canberra class as the ability to deploy UAV,s
certainly the Turkish lhd that is based on the Juan Carlos class has kept its ramp
Turkey releases new image showing LHD Anadolu carrying drone - Naval News
It appears ready to deploy modern UAV,s from it
Turkey’s future unmanned fighter “MIUS” on Final Assembly Line - Naval News
certainly the Turkish lhd that is based on the Juan Carlos class has kept its ramp
Turkey releases new image showing LHD Anadolu carrying drone - Naval News
It appears ready to deploy modern UAV,s from it
Turkey’s future unmanned fighter “MIUS” on Final Assembly Line - Naval News
Agree with the time frame and clarity of need.
As to the solution, we all have our opinions.
Hopefully none of this stuff is needed or tested and the world settles down a bit
Regards S
Sierra Mike
Member
Keeping the ramp assists any potential fixed wing STOL or STOVOL operations, removing the ramp would degrade that. This applies equally to any medium to large size fixed wing manned or unmanned capability.
Antipode
Member
There are some similarities between RAN and Armada’s discussion over the feasibility of operating the F35B from the BPE JC1/Canberra class LHD.
IMHO the answer is no, for both navies. For some of the same problems a nuclear aircraft carrier is (lets say) technically possible but just too much, financing squadrons of F35B to be packed in not dedicated vessels is too expensive for acquisition and sustainment.
It creates a necessity for more escorts and auxiliary ships. If LHD are dedicated to F35B, they become better targets, and those aircraft need a fuel that the LHD doesn’t provide enough for sustained operations. Crew wise, it is a huge investment for a barely redundant capability (for Australia, even worse for Spain).
The escorts and auxiliary vessels could actually offer more by themselves, than chained to catter for those giants.
What Spain spares on pilots and escort carrier experience, she needs to invest on a second JC1 class (for minimal redundancy) and the F35B themselves, alongside training for them and their sustainment.
What Australia spares thaks to the two, younger Canberra class, spends on training and adaptation until full capacity readiness.
I believe that sheer amount of effort and commitment would be better invested on other assets like submarines, high end munitions stockpiles, ASW and maritime surveillance planes.
IMHO the answer is no, for both navies. For some of the same problems a nuclear aircraft carrier is (lets say) technically possible but just too much, financing squadrons of F35B to be packed in not dedicated vessels is too expensive for acquisition and sustainment.
It creates a necessity for more escorts and auxiliary ships. If LHD are dedicated to F35B, they become better targets, and those aircraft need a fuel that the LHD doesn’t provide enough for sustained operations. Crew wise, it is a huge investment for a barely redundant capability (for Australia, even worse for Spain).
The escorts and auxiliary vessels could actually offer more by themselves, than chained to catter for those giants.
What Spain spares on pilots and escort carrier experience, she needs to invest on a second JC1 class (for minimal redundancy) and the F35B themselves, alongside training for them and their sustainment.
What Australia spares thaks to the two, younger Canberra class, spends on training and adaptation until full capacity readiness.
I believe that sheer amount of effort and commitment would be better invested on other assets like submarines, high end munitions stockpiles, ASW and maritime surveillance planes.
Antipode
Member
For the RAN, the in between solution, something in the line (if not size) of the QE or a beffed up, dedicated Navantia design roughly based on JC1/Canberra, seems to me like the most feasible solution, if it really needs to happen. Not that I advocate for it.
Then the Canberras could be adapted for the F35Bs, perhaps even have some (4/6?) onboard most of times, to act as... auxiliary carriers?
Acting as a trio, that would offer redundancy and flexibility, not only in a TF, but in the deployment and movement of F35B on islands.
Off course, it would still need more escorts etc.
Salud
Then the Canberras could be adapted for the F35Bs, perhaps even have some (4/6?) onboard most of times, to act as... auxiliary carriers?
Acting as a trio, that would offer redundancy and flexibility, not only in a TF, but in the deployment and movement of F35B on islands.
Off course, it would still need more escorts etc.
Salud
Sierra Mike
Member
Right now, as I see it, advocating for a return of a fixed wing Fleet Air Arm capability is not a priority for the RAN. Submarines and Frigates/Destroyers is the urgent need.
The best chance of getting a F-35 onto a RAN LHD would be cross decking of USMC F-35B's as a proof of concept. Similar to the recent V-22 Osprey activities at RIMPAC...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
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.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
If Australia had stayed in the CV game in the 80s, ending up with either the Invincible or the new build ship based on the Iwo Jima design then a conversion of several Sea Kings to AEW standard as per the RN Sea King AEWs would have been a strong chance.
- Status