British inventors have been responsible for many of the innovations that have made carrier aviation possible. The ‘ski jump’ was first developed in the 1970s to enable the Sea Harrier jet to launch more safely and efficiently and is a feature of the new QEC aircraft carriers, helping launch the latest generation of jets. Here we look at the history, design and purpose of the ramp.
Background
The first known use of an angled ramp to launch aircraft at sea was in 1944 when a temporary wooden ramp was installed on HMS Furious. This crude construction was employed specifically to help underpowered, Fairy Barracuda aircraft stagger into the air armed with 1,600 lb armour-piercing bombs for operation Tungsten, an attack on the German battleship Tirpitz in Norway.
The Harrier GR1 first entered with the RAF in 1969 a land-based close-support aircraft but various trials were made with the aircraft operating at sea. The RN’s conventional aircraft carrier project (CVA-01) had been axed in 1966 and many in the navy began to realise the Harrier had the potential to provide a basic fixed-wing fighter than could operate from the much smaller vessels of the future. British Aerospace was keen to produce a navalised Harrier and studies were well underway before the Navy Board formally approved the development of the Sea Harrier in April 1975. Although the Harrier could take off vertically when given any kind of useful weapon and fuel load, this was impossible and a short rolling take-off was required. It was determined that wind over the deck and a 299-metre runway would be needed to launch a Harrier with a full war load. The RN needed a solution to the Short Take-Off (STO) problem as the Invincible class ‘through-deck cruisers’, then under construction, had only a 200-meter flight deck.
Inspiration
Lt Cdr Doug Taylor, studying at Southampton University in 1973 was tasked to write a thesis looking at options for resolving this problem. His apparently simplistic idea of a curved ski ramp was initially met with some scepticism but further investigation quickly revealed that the concept showed real promise. Hawker Siddeley Aviation in Kingston, responsible for designing and manufacturing the Harrier (before it was consumed by British Aerospace in 1977), and the MoD explored and verified the concept further using simulation and computer modelling techniques.
On 5th August the 1977 first ski-ramp trial was conducted at RAE Bedford using a test aircraft (The first Sea Harrier did not fly until 20th August 1978). Within a year, the ramp had been tried at angles between 6.5 – 20º and the tests showed that the aircraft was indeed able to get airborne with much heavier loads. The ramp also added a considerable margin of safety, even if the ship pitched down at the moment of launch, the aircraft would still have enough height above the sea. If the engine failed during launch, the pilot had about three times the amount of time to eject than if launched off a flat deck.
In simple terms, the aircraft does not fly off the ski jump, instead, forward momentum is partially converted into vertical thrust by the ramp. Together with upward thrust generated by the vectored jet nozzles, the aircraft follows a semi-ballistic trajectory for a few hundred yards until it has enough forward speed for the wings to provide all the lift. As the aircraft moves along the ramp, there is additional force applied to the landing gear but both the Sea Harrier and F-35B were designed with heavy vertical landings in mind which often put far greater stress on the undercarriage.
-
Early days. A Sea Harrier FRS1 launches from the 7º ramp, HMS Invincible, 1980. (Photo BAE Systems) -
HMS Invincible launched at Vickers in Barrow on 3rd May 1977 with the ski ramp yet to be fitted. (Photo: Imperial War Museum) -
Sea Harriers using the ski jumps to take off from the carriers on every sortie were an outstanding success in combat during the Falklands conflict. Seen here, HMS Invincible is relieved by HMS Illustrious (nearest camera) at the end of the war in late June 1982. Both ships were constructed with 7º ramps. -
HMS Hermes was fitted with a 12º ramp during her 1979 refit. Some consideration was given to aesthetics, the ramp design produced smooth flowing lines at the bows. -
HMS Ark Royal was built with a 12º ramp which always looked rather more graceful than the blunt addition applied to her sisters. -
HMS Invincible emerged from refit in 1989 sporting a boxy 12º ramp (And Goalkeeper CIWS). -
A Sea Harrier FA2 of 801 Naval Air Squadron sits on the 12º ramp of HMS Invincible for display purposes, prior to entering port, 2003. -
HMS Hermes’ ramp seen during some sporty weather. The extra clearance above sea level provided by the ramp was appreciated by pilots. -
GR9 aircraft of the short-lived ‘Naval Strike Wing’ make the most of limited sea time on HMS Illustrious, 2009. -
Swansong. A Harrier GR9 launches from Ark Royal in March 2010. Ark Royal and the Harriers were axed in the notorious October 2010 Defence Review. 
The T8 two-seater Sea Harrier training variant launches from the dummy deck ramp at RNAS Yeovilton, 2005. The ramp was dismantled in 2008 after the final Sea Harrier Squadron was unwisely prematurely disbanded in 2006. -
The first ski jump was added to HMS Invincible while she was fitting out in Barrow and was set at a conservative 7º angle, so as not to interfere with the firing arcs of the adjacent Sea Dart missile launcher. Invincible commissioned in July 1980 and on 30 October, test pilot, Lt Cdr David Poole made the first Harrier launch from a ski jump at sea. HMS Illustrious, hurriedly commissioned in 1982 was also fitted with a 7º ramp while HMS Ark Royal, commissioned in 1985, was built with a 12º ramp from the outset. The first two ships were subsequently retrofitted with 12º ramps which was found to be the optimum angle. Improving the performance of the Harrier was deemed of much greater importance than a small limitation on Sea Dart firing arcs and the entire missile system was subsequently removed entirely to provide more space for aircraft and stores.
Lessons learned
The ski jump is a relatively cheap and simple addition to the carriers, being a straightforward steel construction with no moving parts. However it was discovered, once in service that apparently small differences in the build quality of the ramps of the three ships affected the life of the Sea Harrier undercarriage. The original design work assumed an absolutely smooth ramp but small ruts or imperfections in the surface were enough to cause cracking on some aircraft landing gear. This issue was expensively resolved and the lesson led to higher design tolerances being specified for the QEC ramps. Additionally, the F-35 has a wide tricycle gear which is more affected by small bumps, demanding more careful ramp design than for the Harrier’s tandem main gear. The centre section of the QEC deck is slightly cambered to help water runoff, further complicating the interface with the ramp.
By 2003 the decision had been made that the QEC carriers would be configured for STOVL operations and would have a ski ramp like the preceding Invincible class CVS. The QEC design is an ‘adaptable carrier’, configured for STOVL but capable of being fitted with catapults and arrestor gear, if required at some point in the future. (The brief flirtation with CATOBAR configuration between 2010-12 is a controversial rabbit hole, well beyond the scope of this article). This meant the ski jump would be a removable structure that was added to the forward flight deck, rather than a fully integrated into the bow design of the ship (as seen in the 2002 QEC ‘Alpha’ concept).
Detailed work on the ramp design was started but in 2007, once Lockheed Martin had done enough simulator work and had developed mature flight control models. The QEC ramp was designed by BAE Systems with input from LM, rather than the shipbuilders. It is not immediately obvious but the ramp has two very subtle curves. The entry section is a long ‘cubic’ curve that leads to a second let-down or ‘ellipse’ section where the aircraft is launched.
Evolution-of-Ski-Jump-Design-Royal-NavyThe next generation
Work on ski jump trials with the F-35B began in 2014 in the United States at NAS Patuxent River, initially using offline and manual simulation. Most of the work involved exploring what would happen if problems occur during take-off, such as a sudden drop in wind velocity, loss of engine power, blown tyres or nose wheel failure. A UK company, Williams Fairey Engineering Limited (WFEL) was awarded a £2M contract to construct a test ramp in the Centre Field at Pax River. The design was based on the CVS ramp profile and completed in 2009, although the first F-35B ski-jump STO was not made until June 2015.
By June 2016, 31 test launches had been made testing a variety of approach speeds and internal loads with speeds off the end of the ramp ranging from 65-95 knots. Some issues were discovered during testing but nothing serious and the results informed the minor design changes to flight control software. A second phase of trials numbering around 150 launches was begun in 2017 to understand the characteristics of the aircraft during overspeed or underspeed take-offs and carrying external weapons, including asymmetric loads. When the first jet was successfully launched from HMS Queen Elizabeth’s ski jump on 25th September 2018, years of simulations and preparation ensured it was considered a very low-risk aspect of the programme.
Despite its vertical landing and ski-ramp launch, the 21st Century F-35B Lightning II has very little in common with the Harrier designed in the 1960s. The Harrier had four side-mounted swivelling nozzles used to direct thrust down or aft. The supersonic F-35B has a more conventional jet tailpipe but is fitted with a 3-Bearing Swivel Module (3BSM) which rotates down from the horizontal to generate 18,000 pounds of downward thrust from the engine exhaust. To provide longitudinal balance, a cold air shaft-driven lift fan directly behind the cockpit also provides up to 20,000lb of additional vertical thrust during take-off and landing. The lift fan incorporates a vane box which can direct thrust upto 50º aft to provide extra forward thrust during the rolling take off. There are also roll posts under each wing which can deliver up to 2,000 pounds thrust to give lateral balance. To maximise forward thrust, the roll posts are turned off for a few seconds during the STO run and switched back on just as the aircraft leaves the ramp.
-
One of 202 successful F-35 launches from HMS Queen Elizabeth achieved during developmental flying trials with two aircraft during in the Autumn of 2018. -
Seen from this angle, QE won’t win any beauty contests. The bow looks blunt and the angular ski ramp does not help. -
The shape of the bow and ski jump has been considered and the rounded deck edge is important in smoothing airflow and reducing turbulence. Researchers at the University of Liverpool used Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to predict wind over the deck in different conditions and the data was used in the F-35 pilot training simulators. -
Construction of HMS Queen Elizabeth’s ski jump. (left) Made up of 5 boxed sections, the ramp can be seen being built. Temporary stiffening boxes were welded to the top of each ramp section to keep them rigid while being assembled. (Right) The forward section of the ramp was the last structural piece of HMS Queen Elizabeth – seen here being lowered into place, November 2013. (Photos: ACA) -
HMS Queen Elizabeth’s ski ramp seen from the bridge. The centreline markings counting down the distance to the end of the ramp (in feet) can be seen starting with 200, 150, 100 etc. -
A test pilot from the US/UK Integrated Test Force based at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, conducts another trial ski ramp launch in early 2018, prior to the aircraft going to sea on HMS Queen Elizabeth. -
Leaving the ramp, HMS Queen Elizabeth, Westlant18. The F-35 has conventional ‘tricycle’ undercarriage. During take-off, the main wheels take around 90% of the load and the nose wheel takes around 10%. -
Note the 3-Bearing Swivel Module on the tailpipe set at roughly 45º, providing both forward and upward thrust. The aircraft is still in a ballistic trajectory at his point, without enough forward speed to be fully supported by lift from the wings. HMS Queen Elizabeth, Westlant18. -
Automation has made both landing and take-off, much simpler procedures for the F-35 Pilot. A Harrier pilot had a tricky job to manually operate the stick, the throttle, and the nozzle lever with his hands during launch. Advanced control law software in the F-35 means the pilot must only push the throttle to full power, release brakes, and steer towards the centre of the ski-jump. Sensors on the aircraft detect the change in pitch rate and attitude, taking the controls into ‘ski-jump mode’ it automatically sets the horizontal tail position, engine nozzle angles, and changes the balance of thrust between the lift fan and the tail nozzle. When on the ramp, more of the forward thrust comes from the lift fan, but as the aircraft leaves the ramp the 3BSM is very gradually moved so that the engine thrust moves from about 45º to the horizontal. Once flying, the lift fan is disengaged and the doors closed to aerodynamically ‘clean up’ the aircraft.
It is interesting to observe that while the F-35B is exceptionally capable and has low pilot workload, its mechanical complexity is staggering with the greatest number of moving parts ever put into a fast jet.
The British ski ramp was quickly copied by many other navies and remains in use today. The Russian, Chinese, Indian, Italian and Thai navies all posses aircraft carriers with ramps. The Australian and Spanish Juan Carlos-class LHDs also have ramps with an eye to potential F-35B operation. In 2018 it was announced the Japanese Izumo class ‘helicopter destroyers’ would embark F-35Bs and the addition of a ski ramp would clearly be desirable.
The US Navy has never adopted ski ramps for its Harrier and F35-B-equipped assault ships, although the benefits of the ramp are fully appreciated and well understood by the Marine Corps aviation community. Unlike other nations, whose STOVL aircraft are the primary armament of the ship, the Gator Navy’s main purpose is to deliver Marines ashore and the helicopters have priority. With limited flight deck space, a ramp would take up at least two helicopter spots. The USMC concept of operations also sees the fixed-wing aircraft being sent ashore at the earliest opportunity to work in close support of the troops while flying from small airstrips. There is an unspoken political concern within the USN that the addition of a ramp might see the assault ships become perceived as small aircraft carriers, undermining the case for the giant conventional carriers (CVN) that are the centrepiece of the surface fleet. For the Royal Navy, this relatively simple invention will continue to play a key part in enabling fixed-wing operations from its two aircraft carriers for many years to come.
Shame, I always thought that an American LHD would be much better off with a ski jump….
I understand the reasoning behind it. But I have been surprised that the USMC didn’t include it in the new America Class LHDs. The Wasp’s I can understand to a point, but in particular 2 of the America Class have no well deck and are being used as Light Aircraft Carriers. The USN with a reduced number of CV’s compared to the past has used Wasp Class to ‘fill in’. In particular an LHD conducted strikes recently off the coast of Libya. With the increased capability of the F-35 I would have thought they’d have jumped at the chance to maximise a new class of ships. It would have made sense to make them a little longer if they needed to retain as many helo spots as possible.
It’s not a new perspective, not new at all. The USN won’t entertain anything that might reduce the number of CVN hulls. The reality is that some “light” carriers might actually be useful and far cheaper but it’s a forbidden topic.
Ah politics. When you have to trade potential additional capability because it might undermine a capability that it was meant to support.
Then again, as the article points out, there is a practical reason for the amphibs not having ramps. More helicopter spots is more important for a naval landing than additional fighter capability, which would likely be provided by a CVN anyway during a major conflict. A large fleet of specialists is often more effective than a smaller force of generalists.
Tyler Rogaway made a case for the US building smaller carriers back when he was at foxtrotalpha.
Link below:
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-the-us-navy-should-build-smaller-aircraft-carriers-1600899834
On the assumption STRN are happy with the link, apologies if otherwise.
Great article thanks – do you think it would be beneficial that the next amphibious assault ships are LHDs rather than LPDs? otherwise due to the planned length of service of QE class some skills will likely to be lost. Also do you think in 40 years time due to the lack of shipyards we will still be able to undertake a project such as cvf?
The ingenuity and contribution of the UK has been key to carrier development and it would be a shame to lose it.
Hopefully we can get involved with other navies (I think India were looking at the design) to keep our knowledge going forward to add to what we learn from operating carriers.
I also hope we can increase the f35 rate of procurement as not only to fill the deck of QE or PoW but also to increase numbers for the RAF which is at it’s lowest in terms of numbers
I think the RN will be looking at the Trieste with a lot of interest. Before that hit the water everyone thought the Mistral would be the template that the RN would look to to replace Bulwark and Albion., particularly with the demise of Ocean. But Mistral can’t carry Chinook (except on deck which is a big issue) and clearly couldn’t be considered as a reserve deck for F-35B. The similarity in how air operations in particular would be conducted with Trieste compared to QE and PoW. It uses MT30’s the same as the QE’s. The only issue would be slightly larger deck edge lifts than those fitted.
Albion class are years and years away from replacement. This is especially true with only one being in active service at a time.
They are indeed. I suspect the 2030 date that is often mentioned will be extended by a SLEP to c2035. But the direction of travel is clear from LPD’s to LHD’s, and to higher tonnages. The Italians will be operating the Trieste as a carrier in reality, but I suspect the RN will be watching with interest. Truth is the lack of aviation facilities on the Albion and Bulwark was a major mistake, as indeed was the lack of a hangar on the Bay’s (after all the Enforcer design on which they are based had versions with varying degrees of aviation facilities. That mistake has been amplified by the retirement of Ocean without replacement. I’m not saying the UK would purchase the design, but I’d expect something similar with twin islands, deck edge lifts, welldeck, ski jump and over 30,000 tonnes.
In an ideal world, the UK would have purchased the 2 ex-Russian Mistral ships to replace Ocean, Albion and Bulwark in one go, but the money simply wasn’t there, nor political will to defend buying French. I’d personally like to see a licence build of two LHD based on the Spanish Juan Carlos I. They’re large, have far more capacity than Albion and Bulwark in the amphibious role and more helicopter space than Ocean ever did, and can even carry a small complement of F-35B if necessary. Sadly, unless Boris starts to convert his words to concrete action on Defence spending, the money won’t be there for that.
My father, the late Lt Cmdr Boulding – a Swordfish and later Barracuda pilot – told me that he made the suggestion of using a ramp for take off when he was a serving officer to help the planes get into the air. It’s nearly the only thing he told us about the war.
they did actually fit a small ramp to the bow of the old carrier Argus, I don’t know how long it lasted, the idea was to give the Hurricanes (and others) she carried a leg-up from the short deck. In reality it caused more damage to undercarriages than it gave lift so possibly it was removed. When Argus took the Hurricanes for Op. Benedict in August 1941 two of the Hurricanes flying off into Murmansk lost the u/c completely on hitting the ramp, they made it but had to lad with no wheels.
It’s funny that the US navy are now pushing for the America/Wasp class to be “Lightning Carriers” i.e. light carriers. This is partially due to the continual problems with the Ford class, especially that the EMALS can’t launch F35As. But also to increase the total aviation footprint available to the Navy. So will these ships have ramps fitted, as it allows the F35Bs an additional 20% in weight to be used? It would be barking to think that the US Navy pushing the light carrier doesn’t use the ramp to enhance the capabilities of the F35.
Did we get any royalties from the countries that copied the design?
If it was required could a ramp be fitted with a catapult to further enhance the take off weight?
Personally, I think the LHD through deck design outperforms the aft facing LPD deck designs. As it offers much more flexibility in helicopter operations, but also gives you the option of operating VTOL/STOVL type aircraft. The only downside, is that the above waterline height is significantly higher than a LPD design. Due to the incorporation of both a well deck and a hangar plus the additional vehicle decks.
“So will these ships have ramps fitted, as it allows the F35Bs an additional 20% in weight to be used? It would be barking to think that the US Navy pushing the light carrier doesn’t use the ramp to enhance the capabilities of the F35.”
Doesn’t look like they will, even with the first 2 America Class which lack the well deck of the Wasps (and the later America Class). Even though they’re being touted as Lightning Carriers, the USN still sees their role as primarily amphibious assault using vertical lift. Whether or not this changes in the future and they bolt on some ski jumps may depend on the UK proving the concept, the USMC experiencing it on the QE Class or, just as likely, the F-35B being a little less suited to forward deployed expeditionary ops than the Harrier.
“Did we get any royalties from the countries that copied the design?”
Pretty hard to patent a ramp unfortunately..
“If it was required could a ramp be fitted with a catapult to further enhance the take off weight?”
The stress on aircraft undercarriage would be too great. Even a short catapult before the ramp changed the incline would cause too much strain.
I think it is more likely the US Navy doesn’t want to do anything that may give Congress the impression that there is an alternative to full sized carriers.
…which is precisely why I have a hunch (probably wrong!) that the RN’s next generation of assault ships – if any materialise – will look more like RFA Argus than Ocean or the Invincible class – the logic is that if the RN were to have an Invincible type available as an assault carrier, the temptation for sea-blind politicians to axe the QE class at some point in their service lives in favour of the smaller ship would be all too great. Hence, if you start with a ship like Argus which can’t launch the F-35 (but can launch large helicopters), it can’t end up being the ultimate future of large deck aviation in the RN.
The carriers are highly, HIGHLY, unlikely to ever be the target of cuts. They’re the perfect “fleet in being” cover for axing other assets. So while escorts, minesweepers, submarines, and auxiliaries get cut, the politicians can still claim to be a major naval player, with the QECs forming the heart of (coalition) task forces.
‘They’re the perfect “fleet in being” cover for axing other assets.’
Yes I take your point – but let’s not forget that the axing of the carrier renewal programme in the 1960s was, inter alia, significantly symbolic (part of the ostentatious repudiation of the East of Suez, imperial mindset) and that the very idea of the UK being a ‘major naval player’ is a matter that many in the halls of Westminster (now as then) would relish the prospect of disabusing us of – just as the same cohort probably squirm at the very idea of SSBNs, carriers and HMS Juffair. There are those who see these as totems reflecting delusions of grandeur, as well as those who see these as instruments of a globally trading nation with (round about) the fifth largest economy and enormous current as well as residual diplomatic capital – and importance.
Nevertheless, now that we have them (and let’s face it since the late 90s it was touch and go at times) I think the carriers are safe for a few years yet!
It’s also worth bearing in mind that (I think) the Lightning Carrier concept requires storage of some of the aircraft on the edge of the flight deck. The America class are relatively speaking much smaller than a QE anyway, so trying to make room for a ski ramp while maintaining the ~24 aircraft and having them able to efficiently taxi for take-off etc. may not be possible.
I believe as soon as the USMC start operating from the QE class, they will see the benefits of the ramp. If they see the benefits, then perhaps they will ask for the same on their ships?
The truth is that the QEs are big enough to hold all the likely F35s that will be available and all the junglies, HM2s too. That being said, a task group made up of a QE, Albion, 2 Bays and 2 Points is not to be sniffed at and probably has the capability to carry more AirPower than has been available to the UK since 1982.
Great article. Obviously a lot more to the simple “ski ramp” than meets the eye.
I’d never looked before but Ark certainly did get a better deal from the naval architects than her sisters. On an unrelated note, you are planning on putting together some of your more in-depth pieces into a book at some point I hope?
STRN is online-only at present. A book would be fun to do if we had more time and resources, although might be a difficult sell if most of the content is already freely available online.
From final paragraph “……..who’s STOVL aircraft……”
Whose, not who’s.
” The Australian and Spanish Juan Carlos-class LHDs also have ramps with an eye to potential F-35B operation.”
The Spanish most certainly have an eye for embarked F-35Bs, but Australia’s navy, air force and defence bureaucracy have zero interest in it. A couple of politicians pushed the idea five years ago, but it was quietly dropped soon after without any work being done.
The Australians retained the ramp, perhaps with a view that they might one-day support USMC, Japanese or even UK F35-B operations.
Wasn’t it argued that the only/main reason why the ramp was included in the design for HMAS Adelaide/Canberra was cost? In that it would have been far more costly to re-engineer the ships’ bow for a flat deck than to simply keep the ramp as is, and to avoid the additional cost of commissioning analysis on the effects on wind over deck with the flat deck. That, in addition to the ship infrastructure (fuel lines, fixed wing munition stores) being left out during the build phase, all to save cost.
The stated reason was that it was too expensive to remove the ramp. The RAN would love to see the ships F-35B equipped but it was never part of the budget.
Given the forces building up in Asia a half dozen F-35’s per ship would have been irrelevant if the US was around and inadequate if they were not.
In practical terms RAN needs more helicopters to make full use the 2 LHD’s. With only 23 Seahawk Romeo’s and 6 NH-90’s they are dependant on Army helicopter to flesh out an air group.
I have no official information but reading between the lines I think it’s bit of column A and a bit of column B; it was too expensive to design the ramp out, and the deck is unsuitable for the heat generated by the F35 for sustained operations so it was never really designed to be turned back into a carrier.
What I suspect it was designed with was a view towards was that seeing as any opposed landing the RAN would be sailing the 2RAR BG toward would be in support of a greater USMC effort, and seeing as the USN doesn’t have enough flat tops to embark all the USMC’s F35B’s, then half a dozen of those could be given a lift and then disembarked at the first opportunity, think WW2 era CAM in terms of operational sortie rate, BUT, with a very useful emergency landing strip ability (and if the USMC ever get the in flight refuelling version of the V 22 into widespread service it will be interesting to see how quickly it gets certified to land on a Canberra).
As someone noted elsewhere in the thread there was a movement to embark F35’s, however it needs to be stressed that it was at a political level (as a result of lobbying), and it came after the ships had been selected, it did not come from the ADF/RAN. The ADF has a better feel for what it can do – budget wise – than many groups who lobby for it and they knew they had a choice : build an F 35 equipped escort carrier capability or a strong amphibious warfare capability, the decision to build the latter capability comes from the usual “you prepare for the last war you fought” approach (which is not to say it was the wrong decision, far from it), Somalia, Iraq, East Timor, Solomon Islands, not to mention the assorted humanitarian interventions (take the ’04 tsunami as an example, there are others seeing as the northern part of the country is in a tropical cyclone zone) all pointed toward the need for a strong amphibious assault and/or logistical lift capability.
…. Of course I could be reading too much into that and it was simply a case of the RAN knowing that in the dog eat dog world of inter-service politics and budgets, the RAAF would fight them to the death if they chose to build a carrier/ air group whereas the army would fully support an amphibious capability. Pick your battles and all of that 😉
It’s interesting, Australia has worked hard to update their Amphibious fleet and the Canberra class certainly are very fine ships.
They have made the right decision, though organic Carrier Strike is a lovely capability to have, it’s not an critical requirement for the Australians and their defence money is well spent in general.
I can see no possible Australian military action that wouldn’t be fully supported by the US if needed, including full Carrier Strike if required.
Ironically, the Canberra Class with the bow ramp removed, would be a perfect replacement for Ocean.
“and the deck is unsuitable for the heat generated by the F35 for sustained operations ”
The deck can be given the appropriate covering quite easily in a refit period. There would need to be some areas that were protected with covers etc. But these are all very minor mods (but not quick, the covering for the portions of the flight deck exposed to high temps would take some months to apply). The fuel lines, magazine etc. are far more significant. The cost and hassle to re-add these if the RAN wanted them would probably mean a decision about whether to do it or just buy a dedicated ship would be a close one.
Again, this is just me reading between the lines, but I suspect that if the RAN had really wanted a carrier they could have gotten one. The decision was made in the early noughties when a conservative government with a good track record of defence spending was in power and China’s demand for Australia’s rocks (specifically the red ones and the black ones) was insatiable so money was not a problem.
The decision to build an amphibious capability instead of a carrier capability was deliberate, and as I said before was based on the last war (although in this case it was more of an operation than a war), the definitive Op for the ADF in the last 20 years wasn’t Iraq or Afghanistan, in both of those the ADF slotted into a coalition and they could use someone else’s logistic network, much as they had done in Korea and Vietnam. However in Timor, they had to lead the coalition and provide the logistic network, and in a post cold war spending environment where all the money had gone on assets at the pointy end (such as the Collins class) there hadn’t been enough spending on defence logistics and it made Timor a damn close run thing. In the end I’m lead to believe the US bailed the ADF out (as a whole, not just the RAN), On the RAN’s side the Tobruk was simply too old and the less said about the Kanimblas the better. Out of that mess the planning for the Canberra’s was born and the opportunistic acquisition from the RN of what became the Choules was authorised, buying a carrier and building a carrier air wing (from scratch) was never really competitive given what had happened in 1999.
Had the GFC not happened it’s possible a carrier would have come later, but frankly it’s unlikely, the said same economic conditions that resulted in Australia going 30 or so years without a recession also resulted in some twilight zone employment conditions (Electricians on $160 000 their first year after completing their apprenticeship, janitors starting on about $80 000 and if they got an off shore position they could easily get $110 000 for cleaning duties: Please note these are FIFO [FlyInFlyOut] rates, you fly to a site, work 12 hour shifts for three weeks straight then fly home for one week off, and repeat) that made defence recruiting and more importantly defence retention hard, the RAN has two of six minesweepers, one of eight ANZAC class frigates, and they won’t admit publicly exactly how many out of six SSKs in reserve because they can’t crew them.
I chose the heat because it was already getting a bit long for a comment, but the RAN systematically stripped the fixed wing aviation capabilities out (save the ramp) and never intended to put them back in because they didn’t want or need a carrier, they just can’t crew one, (they could crew the ship I suspect, but not the air wing), a carrier is a competing priority and it isn’t going to happen.
I was led to believe that the weapons lifts & magazines are still all there (as they would have cost money to design out just like the ramp & the helicopters also carry missiles, rockets & LWT). I do know that the ability to open the hangar / light vehicle deck partition still exists. The biggest problems seem to be around sustained operations as a light carrier (with 10-12 F35B) rather than what would be required for an occasional fast jet equiped amphib ship (6-8 F35B). Even the Spanish never intended the JC1 to be a full blown carrier. It appears though, if Australia does end up with some F35B, they will be RAAF controlled planes, not RAN & would operate off the LHD’s in a similar fashion to Army helicopters. It seems to hinge on the possability of the 24 F/A18 F being replaced early as a follow on order to the present 72 F35A order, with both the ‘A’ & ‘B’ being mentioned as possible options by RAAF. It should also be noted that there are more uses for F35B than just operating off a carrier/LHD.
I seem to remember the Americans experimented with ski ramps in the 1980s. I think they launched F-16, F-18, F-15 off a land based 8 degree ramp. I think they had a proposal to build a 45000 ton carrier with 2 bow catapults in a shallow straight 2 degree ramp. The Nimitz lobby killed that, as they wanted big carriers.
Another excellent & well researched article.
I didn’t know that the QE was an ” ‘adaptable carrier’, configured for STOVL but capable of being fitted with catapults and arrestor gear”. Does that mean it could be adapted to fly strengthened Typhoons? Or is the capability just on paper?
Probably easiest just to point you to an earlier article:
https://www.navylookout.com/development-of-the-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carrier-a-design-history/
Regards, Nemo
Thanks…
How people forget HMS Hermes, who was fitted with a ramp and at sea while invincible was being built
🦋🐼🍭🆔 Right is Angle 20°,Higher the Jet Can’t Be Thrown,Force Could left on Vertical.🐻🥁🎶Smooth Elevation of Trampoline Gives Any Angle to Jump.🥨🐼🌟
Actually the first ski ramp was fitted to HMS Hermes. I know this as I was serving on her at the time. It was about 1979 give or take
Steve C
A fascinating article and discussion. Just out of interest, does anybody remember ‘Fireball XL5’? Just a thought.
Do we actually have enough aircraft to stock both aware aircraft carrier ?
It’s a bit embarrassing seeing these ships without aircraft on them just helicopters.
These aircraft carrier should be permanently stocked with aircraft not just a handful joining the ships at see ,what message does this send to the rest of the world. ( weak )
Haydyn, the ships arent fully operational, they have to go through years of testing and training before loading them up with aircraft. That’s not embarrassing, that’s testing. Both carriers won’t operate at the same time either. So you will see QE set sail next year with a likely complement of 24 F35B plus helo’s. That in itself is likely the second most powerful carrier operation after a Nimitz/Ford, hardly weak.