Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Build your Own CBG
Jack Tarr    8/23/2007 3:05:25 PM
OK, lately there have been a few topics on the British, French, US Navies which seem to pit these apparently allied navies against each other in a "who's got the biggest stick" competition.(which is all rather silly and pointless, we are supposed to be allies/partners after all) In an effort to see how cooperative we can be instead, I thought it would be interesting to see what you guys can come up with for a force mix for an allied (RN, French {MN?}, USN) CBG? E.G Centered around the CDG, is a Ticonderoga, an Arleigh Burke, a Type 42, a Type 23, a La Fayette, and a Trafalgar SSN. There must be at least one vessel from each participating country. (and don't all just go for a Nimitz at the centre...let's be creative folks!) Try to look at the strengths each navy/vessel can be add to your CBG.(rather than just taking the pi$$ out of each other) I know there are lots of variables like "what's the mission" but this is just meant as a bit of fun, so go crazy with what CBG you would send for a specific mission. Later, we can maybe look at an all Euro CBG, or a Five Power GBG? (otherwise the aussies will feel left out ;-) )
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
stingray1003       8/29/2007 4:42:29 PM
Im curious why GF you think the Canberra would struggle with fixed wing air ops.
 
 It seems the perfect design for a combined amphibious/carrier ship. Italy looks like producing a ship very simular to her for simular duties.
 
 It has two main lifts in good positions (better than Invincibles). It has a weapon lift sytem. It has adiquate deck space to free space for take off and landings with out hangering planes. It has a hanger not much smaller than what is planned for the CVF, which plans to operate 40-60 aircraft!
 
 While a deck edge lift would be nice, it would reduce the sea worthness of the ship this size. And the lifts as they are, located as close to the edges as possible.
 
 As longs as its operated with the knowledge of its limitations and its sortie rate would a few % lower than that of say the Cavour it appears to be a excellent platform.
 
 The only limitation is that you have to choose, carrier or amphib. Not both.  
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/29/2007 6:21:54 PM

Im curious why GF you think the Canberra would struggle with fixed wing air ops.
My response was related to the number of fixed wing combatants you wanted to put on her.  The ship is not designed for that many aircraft.  There is no reason why you can't run fixed wing missions - but not with that many FW aircraft.
Rea; estate is an issue because it inludes factors such as concurrent launch and retrieval options, below deck storage, shape and location of below deck aircraft handling area (speed and movement below deck is critical) and bunkerage issues.

btw, RAN looked at Wasp as a platform contender and it was rejected for a variety of reasons. 
 
Quote    Reply

stingray1003       8/30/2007 2:52:55 AM
Well when I said 24 F-35B That may have been me misrepresenting it.
 
 A pool of 24 aircraft could be shared between the Wasp and the Canberra. While initally deploying a amphib landing, the Canberra could launch inital aircraft (say from a pool of 8-12). Max of 3 or 4 in the air at anyone time. Once the Wasp had deployed most of its equipment and troops, the remaining 14-12 could be operated off the Wasp. Between them they would be able to operate a squad, which is about what is needed for a heavily contested assult. With 6-8 in the air at anyone time.
 
 A BPE ship is able to carry about 20-24 F-35B's, I think.
 
 Being closer to the action, and being directed by people on the ground for just the operation at hand would make it a superior choice than slotting in time on a CVN which could be bombing the entire country end to end.
 
 A lone BPE would be able to offer some airsupport for say a withdrawal or deterance against others trying to own the airspace (say after a CVN leaves the area). It would certainly stuggle against a country that currently owned its airspace or needed strategic bombing.
 
 I think your selling them short as just lilly pads for emergency landing rotors. That would be more suitable to the smaller spanish, Dutch and Japanese flat tops.
 
 The canberras have real Fixed wing capabilities. Okay no one will ever mistake them for a CVN. But as a light carrier they can operate a sufficent number to be useful. Given fixed wing aircraft are force multipliers of the highest order, and securing airspace is absolutely essential for modern warfare, the Canberras should be concidered for fixed wing ops.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/30/2007 3:05:51 AM


 I think your selling them short as just lilly pads for emergency landing rotors. That would be more suitable to the smaller spanish, Dutch and Japanese flat tops.

 The canberras have real Fixed wing capabilities. Okay no one will ever mistake them for a CVN. But as a light carrier they can operate a sufficent number to be useful. Given fixed wing aircraft are force multipliers of the highest order, and securing airspace is absolutely essential for modern warfare, the Canberras should be concidered for fixed wing ops.

 
No, I'm just not wanting to turn a silk purse out of a sows ear.
They can carry fixed wing aircraft and deliver capability within their limitations (so could the Atlantic Conveyor) - however their best role is their design role as the design has inherent limitations.  No amount of wishful thinking changes the bunkerage and handling limitations.
 
Their next best role after expeditionary delivery is as a hotswapped rotor plaform as it allows the bigger flat top (with faster and heavier lifts) to undertake proper delivery cycles of aircraft to the deck.
 
There;s a greater benefit in having then operate as an ASW C3 shop than as a defacto carrier (except as a valuable backup for recovery and launch in her own right if tempo requires it)
 
Capability is not just measured by how much flat surface is available upstairs - its also (and more) about storage, stowage and cycling the right aircraft at the right time.

If AMPT is right (and he's far better placed to know than any of us in here) and the LHA's are up for a bit of steel rhinoplasty - then that automatically means one less space for a FWCA to have - and correspondingly changes delivery and recovery rates.
 
One small detail that is being missed by the CVL enthusiasts is that there is no indication that the deck will be heat and blast proof for vectored nozzles for aircraft such as the Harrier and JSF verty.
 
If thats in the plans, and if the rhino cosmetics occur, then they will be rotor homes - period.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       8/30/2007 5:13:52 AM





 I think your selling them short as just lilly pads for emergency landing rotors. That would be more suitable to the smaller spanish, Dutch and Japanese flat tops.



 The canberras have real Fixed wing capabilities. Okay no one will ever mistake them for a CVN. But as a light carrier they can operate a sufficent number to be useful. Given fixed wing aircraft are force multipliers of the highest order, and securing airspace is absolutely essential for modern warfare, the Canberras should be concidered for fixed wing ops.



 


No, I'm just not wanting to turn a silk purse out of a sows ear.

They can carry fixed wing aircraft and deliver capability within their limitations (so could the Atlantic Conveyor) - however their best role is their design role as the design has inherent limitations.  No amount of wishful thinking changes the bunkerage and handling limitations.

 

Their next best role after expeditionary delivery is as a hotswapped rotor plaform as it allows the bigger flat top (with faster and heavier lifts) to undertake proper delivery cycles of aircraft to the deck.

 

There;s a greater benefit in having then operate as an ASW C3 shop than as a defacto carrier (except as a valuable backup for recovery and launch in her own right if tempo requires it)

 

Capability is not just measured by how much flat surface is available upstairs - its also (and more) about storage, stowage and cycling the right aircraft at the right time.

If AMPT is right (and he's far better placed to know than any of us in here) and the LHA's are up for a bit of steel rhinoplasty - then that automatically means one less space for a FWCA to have - and correspondingly changes delivery and recovery rates.

 

One small detail that is being missed by the CVL enthusiasts is that there is no indication that the deck will be heat and blast proof for vectored nozzles for aircraft such as the Harrier and JSF verty.

 

If thats in the plans, and if the rhino cosmetics occur, then they will be rotor homes - period.

 

 

 



I'm not happy about foregoing the heatshielding the flight deck, or getting rid of the ramp.
 
Here's why;
 
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1346/1275003686_ade0a66731_o.jpg" width=900 border=0>
 
Something UCAV the mass of a medium helo you can roll off an LPH and have up aloft to provide some kind of multirole AEW/CAS/A2A/A2G shooting options to give Mister BADGER and Joe PRCbandit what he truely deserves-especially when it comes time to settle the Spratly question.   
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

stingray1003       8/30/2007 5:14:12 AM
 I would have thought the surface would have been heat proof. S.K flat tops are and the are too small to operate a F-35B. Heat proof surfaces I would imagine be generally more durable. UCAV's etc who knows what would be useful to launch off them.
 
  I suppose more will be publically known once the Juan Carlos is undergoing trials.
 
 If a third LHD is to be aquired, it may be worthwhile waiting a bit. Spain is toying with designing a full carrier to replace the PdA (tiny in comparison to the BPE design). Rumors I've heard are 35,000t. But then again this is highly speculative and into 2020 delivery time and make belive budget land. Or conversely a Cavour design.
 
 I would imagine that things like China aquiring a fleet of Backfires and establishing a carrier fleet may push Australia to seek true carrier power (perhaps in CVF form). Or indonesia suddenly developing a extremely competent projecting airforce.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/30/2007 6:29:48 AM

 I would have thought the surface would have been heat proof. S.K flat tops are and the are too small to operate a F-35B. Heat proof surfaces I would imagine be generally more durable. UCAV's etc who knows what would be useful to launch off them.
 
I suppose more will be publically known once the Juan Carlos is undergoing trials.
 
If a third LHD is to be aquired, it may be worthwhile waiting a bit. Spain is toying with designing a full carrier to replace the PdA (tiny in comparison to the BPE design). Rumors I've heard are 35,000t. But then again this is highly speculative and into 2020 delivery time and make belive budget land. Or conversely a Cavour design.

I would imagine that things like China aquiring a fleet of Backfires and establishing a carrier fleet may push Australia to seek true carrier power (perhaps in CVF form). Or indonesia suddenly developing a extremely competent projecting airforce.
 

If china becomes a problem - (and my belief is that unless they manage to redistribute equity to all provinces they are going to come a cropper with a rerun of civil disturbances) - then you don't want to take them on with floating air.
there's an anti-shipping maxim  that says "bombs and missiles let in air - torpedoes let in water".  The end game is to always let in water when you strike a carrier as you want to do enough to mobility
kill it so that it can't run ops, can't provision the rest of the support group and needs protection (thus pulling critical assets away from other prosecution missions)
 
I might be biased, but subs cause the greatest and most immediate rate of disproportionate attention of any naval platform.
 
one sub will tie up a fleet, and if you want to go ASW, use another sub to do it.  the PLANs assets sound like underwater kelvinators - no amount of 7 bladed screws is going to change that as they haven't worked out how it all fits together properly. (its like the kid who goes to the auto performance shop, buys the best of everything and then wonders why the hell his car runs like a dog.  if you don't understand the relationships between different bits of gear - then you'll birth a dog.  They're still birthing dogs - and there's been nothing in the last 5 years that demonstrates to me that they have actually got any better at it (irrespective of all the frantic cries from the balcony that they launched a nuke - BFD)
 
if you want to look at the complexities of carrier warfare - and why the americans are so good at it, then study events like the Marianas Turkey Shoot - if you want toii wage war with carriers you either do it properly or go home.
 
an excellent book to read is "Clash of the Carriers" by Barrett Tillman.  Even though its a WW2 appraisal, it articulates clearer than any other book I've read what and how you fight a naval war that still has relevance to todays threats.

The only ones who have the historical knowledge and persistence to wage carrier ops are the americans  - everyone else is a bit player - and I don't say that to disparage any other navy, it is a global reality where everyone else is a regional player.
 
If we ever go to war against the PLAN, then give me 8 x "son of Collins"  everytime.  Its going to be years before the PLAN demonstrate tactical coherence, an ability to run complex fleet solutions, and build vessels that are acoustically quiet.  Stealing technology from scottish transducers for harbour protection is not transferrable to making subs quiet.  They're miles away from being a threat at the UDT level.  The Japanese and Sth Koreans could sink them in a heartbeat.
 
The long and the short of it for me is that if we get LHA's, then use them as LHA's and not fool ourselves into thinking that have latent CVL's in our midst.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

stingray1003       8/31/2007 3:52:57 AM
But they are latent CVL's.
 
 CVL are limited in capabilities. They may only be able to operate 6-8 fixed wing aircraft. With 2 LHD's, yes, I doubt we would use them a carriers, but F-35B's and suitable UAV would still be useful.
 
 With 3 LHD we can dedicate one to F-35B's and UAV's We would not always have to use it as a CVL but the possibility is there.  
 
 I totally agree that Australia should have 8 new subs. But that doesn't take away from the LHD/CVL aspect. It enhances it. Subs are great at destroying big real hard targets in water. But against aircraft (even UAV's) they are a poor choice. Land strike is always going to be limited. Can they really help out in a distaster zone? The future vision for the RAN I would like to see
 
3 x LHD
4 x AWD
8 x Collins II
8 x New Frigates (4,000t +)
2 x High speed Cats
1 x Roro (40,000t)
1 x Command specific ship (Manoora or Kanimbla retained) with hospital facilities
 
  The subs would be the real stategic weapons.
 But Australia could form a strike group of:
2 x LHD
2 x AWD
1 x Collins
1 x High speed cat
1 x Roro
1 x Frigate
 
 It would then have enough deck space, for all its choppers to operate and free up a LHD for fixed wing ops, if needed. Australias first wave landing would be very strong, and the fixed wing aspect would further strengthen that capability. 6-8 F-35B's would enable many options and be a great deterant. While only putting a few aircraft in the air, that can be backed up by refueling land based aircraft.
 
 Australia's submarine capability would be further enhanced. Doubling up on the sub escort and fitting them with Tomahawks would also be benifical. Couple this group with a single amphibious ship from say Korea, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, UK or the US and you would have a extremely capable group.
 
 The sort of group it would require if it wants to be a bit more than a tiny regional player.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/31/2007 4:03:37 AM

But they are latent CVL's.
 

CVL are limited in capabilities. They may only be able to operate 6-8 fixed wing aircraft. With 2 LHD's, yes, I doubt we would use them a carriers, but F-35B's and suitable UAV would still be useful.


Just because a fleet asset has a flat deck and a hole in its guts doesn't make it fixed wing combat ready.
 
there are bunkerage issues - and significant issues between the provisioning requirements of rotary elements and fixed wing combat aircraft.  You automatically invite inefficiencies if you are on a light vessel. 
 
If we think that we can use this as STOVL fixed wing combat launchers then we will make a huge ferkin mistake which will bite the blokes on board if and when we go to war.
 
No offence, but in their current format, the dumbest thing we could do is pretend that we have defacto carriers.
 
We've done logistically stupid things in the past - but this one would be a Darwin Award contender.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/31/2007 4:27:05 AM

 I totally agree that Australia should have 8 new subs. But that doesn't take away from the LHD/CVL aspect. It enhances it. Subs are great at destroying big real hard targets in water. But against aircraft (even UAV's) they are a poor choice. Land strike is always going to be limited. Can they really help out in a distaster zone? 

My comments are geared towards JT's scenario - its got nothing to do with future RAN requirements.
I think you grossly misunderstand the role of subs in the RAN.  Subs are our pre-eminent covert ISR asset, they are also equivalent to underwater snipers.
 
Their role is not even approp for disaster management or influence apart from ISR and vectoring roles (which strangely enough some of the USN subs have been doing in the Gulf, and in drug running areas).
 
We don't use subs for saturation strike, we use them for precision and selective strike.
 
Considering the fact that the PLAN has lousy ASW skills (and lets assume that they are our future object of dispute), then why would you even remotely consider using $6-8bn worth of CTF against PLAN carriers when a $2m torpedo will do a dramatically better job and with far less bend in the risk management equation.
 
Its not an issue of a "clash of the titans" - fleet against fleet - its about using the most efficient risk effective and delivery effective platform to dislocate, disrupt, dismember and destroy the enemy's centre asset of threat.  Give me a sub every time to do that job, using a light CTF with limited projection is killing your own people unnecessarily.
 
 


 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics