A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[1805]

The UK has about three times the population & GDP of Australia, & is buying two carriers. Scale that down to Australias resources . . . .

I agree, this is just speculation if the RAN needed them, carriers are actually quite cheap (but I agree not free) its the aircraft that make them expensive.

However the UK lives in a nice quiet part of the world (well nowadays!) and the expenditure on defence (what a PC term) is so we can have a role in the World. Austrailia on the other hand has vast natural resources and lives in a less stable world and if it wasn't for the USN would be spending 4-5 times what she currently spends.

 

[RAAF-35]

Um mate, just to let you know if you had read the posts properly you would of seen that I was not the one suggesting we get 18 subs. I was the one saying why deploying 18 of OpinionNoted subs at once would not be possible.


Some of which may or may not be there isnt saying all 18 deployed simultanously....ok im out.

Doesnt make sense mate, but then again, neither does this website and its mod. I might go down to the pet shop and buy a labrador and donate it to gf0012. I think he needs one. I'd expect a far more civil mod than you to be in control of these boards, one that can distinguish the difference in a persons username, and then use this difference to his/her advantage so that they dont end up having a go at someone for something they didnt say (another reason why a guide dog will help you). The fact that you had a go at me for something I didnt say shows your complete and total lack of competence to mod these boards. The second something swings against you, you use your (fake) power and red writing to itimidate someone to behave. Though you may be high up in this websites hierarchy, Im sure you'll admit that you dont know as much as a retired Hornet pilot does in the warfighting side of things and how the ADF as a whole works.

Looks like this is shaping up to be my last post forever, but honestly, do I care? Not at all, because it seems its run by 1 person under a juche ideology where its either my way or the highway. This must be a real :nutkick for you mate, but maybe one day you'll wake up smell the roses that you and you're opinion does not have any relevence to how the ADF should and could be run.

Oh, and I named the labrador Jack. He's got great eyesight.:el

 

[swerve]

However the UK lives in a nice quiet part of the world (well nowadays!) and the expenditure on defence (what a PC term) is so we can have a role in the World.

Also so that we can have some assurance of access to resources in distant countries - such as Australia.

 

[1805]

Also so that we can have some assurance of access to resources in distant countries - such as Australia.

Thats true! Also I'm a great believe that the democratic powers should use their muscle to promote freedom, it is cheaper in the long run.

 

[Sea Toby]

I can only see a couple countries in that list that dont really have a need for carriers. But other than those couple, the rest seem fine. I can't believe the amount of people on here who are against an aircraft carrier, and I've been holding backing my thoughts for a while now regarding this issue. The fact of the matter is that we could quite easily maintain an aircraft carrier (or two), despite what many seem to think. We could also afford an aircraft carrier, despite what many think. A carrier would not only provide the RAN, but the wider defence community a very valulable asset that has clearly demonstarted its usefullness over the past 70 years, and if you anti's on here think otherwise and want to question their usefullness, then you need to go find a labrador. Im with you on this one T68, but the majority of users on here are not. Im sure this oughta rattle a few cages.

You advocate a light carrier mostly for the troops close air support, in a distant land operation and then use as an example for such doctrine the Falklands Islands. Unfortunately, the British carrier aircraft were much more involved maintaining a CAP over the task force to provide much close air support for the troops. Keep in mind the British had two light carriers involved in the Falklands, not one. Carrier advocates still haven't addressed my concerns for two light carriers, as one is not nearly enough to guarantee availability in a crisis. Other opponents of a light carrier argue having more submarines would provide more defensive and offensive military power and the Aussie defence dollars would be better spent for more submarines.

Simply put, the light carrier advocates have failed to provide supporting documentation for their agenda, nor have they addressed the opponents concerns dealing with the number of light carriers or the investment required either in money , escorting and supporting ships, or personnel. The light carrier advocates have a dream, a TOP GUN dream without any supporting doctrine. Their solutions for their agenda is to throw more money. However, throwing more money at the issue isn't the correct answer.
:nutkick:nutkick:nutkick:nutkick:nutkick:nutkick

 

[OpinionNoted]

Doesnt make sense mate


I wont state for the fourth time what i was clearly saying as your mind is set,you are in a particular frame of mind,i get it...and...enjoy your possibly impending vacation.

 

[1805]

You advocate a light carrier mostly for the troops close air support, in a distant land operation and then use as an example for such doctrine the Falklands Islands. Unfortunately, the British carrier aircraft were much more involved maintaining a CAP over the task force to provide much close air support for the troops. Keep in mind the British had two light carriers involved in the Falklands, not one. Carrier advocates still haven't addressed my concerns for two light carriers, as one is not nearly enough to guarantee availability in a crisis. Other opponents of a light carrier argue having more submarines would provide more defensive and offensive military power and the Aussie defence dollars would be better spent for more submarines.

Simply put, the light carrier advocates have failed to provide supporting documentation for their agenda, nor have they addressed the opponents concerns dealing with the number of light carriers or the investment required either in money , escorting and supporting ships, or personnel. The light carrier advocates have a dream, a TOP GUN dream without any supporting doctrine. Their solutions for their agenda is to throw more money. However, throwing more money at the issue isn't the correct answer.
:nutkick:nutkick:nutkick:nutkick:nutkick:nutkick

The British used Harriers (both FRS & GR) in support of ground troop during the Falklands. Evidenced by losing two (one of each) and having another one written off by the excellent Oerlikon Skyguard 35mm gun system.

The Falklands was a bit of a "perfect storm" for the RN: poor air defence, no AEW, and fighters with only short range sidewinders, 8000 miles from the UK without active allies. It does not make the case against light carriers. Shortly after the Falklands the RN rectified these issues. and certainly today, on a 30-40,000ton ship you can have AEW, Fighters the equal of anything on land. Yes they need more escorts, but they are not defenceless transports they have powerful fighter/strike aircraft to add to a layered defence screen.

Thats said I agree if outside of RAAF cover the RAN would probably be working with USN cover.

 

[Sea Toby]

The British used Harriers (both FRS & GR) in support of ground troop during the Falklands. Evidenced by losing two (one of each) and having another one written off by the excellent Oerlikon Skyguard 35mm gun system.

The Falklands was a bit of a "perfect storm" for the RN: poor air defence, no AEW, and fighters with only short range sidewinders, 8000 miles from the UK without active allies. It does not make the case against light carriers. Shortly after the Falklands the RN rectified these issues. and certainly today, on a 30-40,000ton ship you can have AEW, Fighters the equal of anything on land. Yes they need more escorts, but they are not defenceless transports they have powerful fighter/strike aircraft to add to a layered defence screen.

Thats said I agree if outside of RAAF cover the RAN would probably be working with USN cover.

Now we have gone from a single light carrier of 25k tons to a single small carrier of 40k tons... You are dreaming TOP GUN... Admiral Sandy Woodward said in his memoirs, his book, he kept the carriers a good distance from the Falklands for their protection instead of being closer to provide better close air support.... He was more worried about the carriers than the troops on the ground... And rightly so, the British could not afford to lose a carrier tactically or they would have most likely lost the conflict... From the admirals own words... And he had two while you would be happy with one...

Again, one carrier isn't enough... If you aren't going to buy two why bother?

One carrier would wreck the defence force doctrine, two would destroy it... But it doesn't matter to you, you would throw more money at the problem... Unfortunately, the Australian government requires substance over dreams when it comes to throwing money into the air....

 

[1805]

Now we have gone from a single light carrier of 25k tons to a single small carrier of 40k tons... You are dreaming TOP GUN... Admiral Sandy Woodward said in his memoirs, his book, he kept the carriers a good distance from the Falklands for their protection instead of being closer to provide better close air support.... He was more worried about the carriers than the troops on the ground... And rightly so, the British could not afford to lose a carrier tactically or they would have most likely lost the conflict... From the admirals own words... And he had two while you would be happy with one...

Again, one carrier isn't enough... If you aren't going to buy two why bother?

One carrier would wreck the defence force doctrine, two would destroy it... But it doesn't matter to you, you would throw more money at the problem... Unfortunately, the Australian government requires substance over dreams when it comes to throwing money into the air....

If you had read my post you would see I was not supporting RAN buying carriers, merely that a meaningful ship could be operated on 40k tons and didn't require a QE class sized ship. If they had wanted to go down this route they would have been better off with a Wasp type ship instead of the JC1. They considered that and it wasn't what they wanted.

 

[t68]

You advocate a light carrier mostly for the troops close air support, in a distant land operation and then use as an example for such doctrine the Falklands Islands. Unfortunately, the British carrier aircraft were much more involved maintaining a CAP over the task force to provide much close air support for the troops. Keep in mind the British had two light carriers involved in the Falklands, not one. Carrier advocates still haven't addressed my concerns for two light carriers, as one is not nearly enough to guarantee availability in a crisis. Other opponents of a light carrier argue having more submarines would provide more defensive and offensive military power and the Aussie defence dollars would be better spent for more submarines.

Simply put, the light carrier advocates have failed to provide supporting documentation for their agenda, nor have they addressed the opponents concerns dealing with the number of light carriers or the investment required either in money , escorting and supporting ships, or personnel. The light carrier advocates have a dream, a TOP GUN dream without any supporting doctrine. Their solutions for their agenda is to throw more money. However, throwing more money at the issue isn't the correct answer.
:nutkick:nutkick:nutkick:nutkick:nutkick:nutkick

Statements like this are what make the US come under fire from other countries around the world.

As you put it throwing money at defence is the only way you can be assured of your own defence, one only has to look at the US defence expenditure for the last 80 years. Protecting one’s own interest not only in the Indian/pacific oceans but wherever Australia interest might be, under your statement the US should only be the one to have the means to do so.

What is the implication of suddenly the Italians were to scrap their light carrier or even the French with their single aircraft carrier, let alone the UK with there 2 improved Queen Elizabeth class. I bet the house that that the US wont be so happy with the lose of important assets which can contribute to a coalition were other assets can free up USN assets, no matter how smaller or large and in what numbers. They were not exactly thrilled when they learned that the UK had taken the nuclear submarine out of the equation when the Falklands trouble had started.
It comes down to your ability to operate in a meaningful way with you allies, not only would an Australian light carrier be an increased asset for the defence of Australia in so many ways as i have said before.

A carrier in Australian service will not be a one trick wonder, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, force projection, logistics support, close air support, anti-submarine and anti-surface naval warfare and land attack capabilities as well providing Maritime Security.

As GF has stated it expensive and the opium number is to have 3 asset to have one available, the RN is only buying the 2 Queen Elizabeth class the French only have the 1,Australia has only the one operational in the past, its not insurmountable problem. We will only have 2 Canberra LHD so RAN must know something about managing the assets to have one available at all time.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

If a JSF is way more effective than a harrier, then the corrollary is that fewer may be needed to get the job done.

I don't think RAN will ever need to invade islands such as the falklands which are defended by conventional air forces. So the concept is not exactly transferable. However, it does validate the CVL's effectiveness. Small carriers have limitations but that does not mean small carriers are ineffective.

The issue of availability is subjective. The RN had 2 carriers available in 1982 (The 3rd, Illustrious, was not commissioned yet). They deployed 2.

If only 1 in 2 or 1 in 3 availability was cast in stone, the RN would never have been able to deploy 2 CVLs to falklands.

 

[Todjaeger]

If a JSF is way more effective than a harrier, then the corrollary is that fewer may be needed to get the job done.

I don't think RAN will ever need to invade islands such as the falklands which are defended by conventional air forces. So the concept is not exactly transferable. However, it does validate the CVL's effectiveness. Small carriers have limitations but that does not mean small carriers are ineffective.

The issue of availability is subjective. The RN had 2 carriers available in 1982 (The 3rd, Illustrious, was not commissioned yet). They deployed 2.

If only 1 in 2 or 1 in 3 availability was cast in stone, the RN would never have been able to deploy 2 CVLs to falklands.

You seem to have overlooked what was being alluded to with respect to operational/deployable numbers. For most naval vessels, between deployment, training and maintenance cycles, three vessels are required so that one is always available. Depending on where vessels are in training and maintenance cycles, it can be possible to have a surge deployment of two, or possibly even all three vessels. At least for short periods of time anyway.

If there are only two vessels of a given time available, then deployment, training and maintenance schedules have to be managed very strictly in order to ensure that at least one vessel is available if/when needed. Even then, there might be periods of time when none of the vessels could be available. In the case of the RN being able to deploy both carriers during the Falklands, the RN effectively got 'lucky'. The RN was able to conduct a surge deployment so that both vessels were in theatre and operationaly, and the conflict was short enough in duration that the surge could be maintained for the entire deployment, which was approximately two months of combat operations. If the RN had needed to maintain a constant carrier presence for six months or a year, then one (or both) of the carriers would have needed to be withdrawn for maintenance, refitting and training.

-Cheers

 

[Marc 1]

Though you may be high up in this websites hierarchy, Im sure you'll admit that you dont know as much as a retired Hornet pilot does in the warfighting side of things and how the ADF as a whole works.

I realise that you are banned, but human nature being what it is, you'll be checking again. RAAF - 35, Kudos to the members of your family for being in the defence force and for discussing this issue with you, but they are not the only people with service experience - I was in the regular army, (GF from memory was a reg too). As a Platoon Commander of both a foot battalion and in a mech battalion, I can guarantee that I knew 4/5th about what was really happening in my platoon (that is why new subbies get experienced Sgt's ) I knew about 2/5th about what happened at company and battalion level, and 3/5th of 5/8th of bugger all about anything above that or particularly, procurement decisions. Hell, we were the first ARA unit to be equipped with the Austeyr (6 RAR in 1988 prior to Ex Caltrop Force) on supposedly an extended user trial - and even then the feedback we provided about the trigger guard and vulnerability of the safety catch to inadvertent operation were ignored.

What you don't seem to realise is that the service member is an expert in their respective area - in my case I'd be pretty p1ssed if anyone tried to tell me as a more experienced subbie about the basics of minor unit infantry tactics. I'm sure I'd be a complete knob to think I could suggest to a Hornet pilot how to to take out an SU-35, so I don't. What makes you think that 3 members of the RAAF (not part of the high command) would know anything about employment and operation OF A GODDAMN AIRCRAFT CARRIER!!!! And its utility to Australia given they have no access to the classified threat scenarios etc that future plans are based on?

By the type and level of posts GF has made I'm guessing he is someone who not only has experience of being in the military (so understands the mindset) but is involved somewhere in the middle to higher eschelons of DMO - and is thus privy to the type of info that you, me, your uncles and 99% of the wannabe's on this board are not privy to. Therefore, you have to be a complete prat to believe you can put forward a more coherent argument about these things than he can (remember he is in the system and privy to the data).

I have my own views on the subject which initially mirrored yours. As a member of 6 RAR we were tasked with maintaining the ADF's amphibious role - and yeah, a carrier offshore from a grunt's point of view looked good on the surface. Having seen the arguments against however including the costs (massive) and the alternatives available (tanker supported air assets, NGS, Sub launched weapory) I am now completely against the idea as a complete WOFTAM.

But hey, don't look at any of the arguments put forward, or think to yourself "hey, maybe this guy knows more than me", you just cut loose eh admiral?

Whilst you are at it, all those other experts are telling you lies too, surely you know more about your teeth than your dentist, know more about tax law than your accountant, know more about road rules than the copper on your tail with lights and sirens going trying to stop you for speeding......

Incidentally, I'm a tad worried about your labrador Jack, for all I know you have another uncle who swears that dog's thrive on battery acid despite what that idiot vet said.....

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

You seem to have overlooked what was being alluded to with respect to operational/deployable numbers. For most naval vessels, between deployment, training and maintenance cycles, three vessels are required so that one is always available. Depending on where vessels are in training and maintenance cycles, it can be possible to have a surge deployment of two, or possibly even all three vessels. At least for short periods of time anyway.

If there are only two vessels of a given time available, then deployment, training and maintenance schedules have to be managed very strictly in order to ensure that at least one vessel is available if/when needed. Even then, there might be periods of time when none of the vessels could be available. In the case of the RN being able to deploy both carriers during the Falklands, the RN effectively got 'lucky'. The RN was able to conduct a surge deployment so that both vessels were in theatre and operationaly, and the conflict was short enough in duration that the surge could be maintained for the entire deployment, which was approximately two months of combat operations. If the RN had needed to maintain a constant carrier presence for six months or a year, then one (or both) of the carriers would have needed to be withdrawn for maintenance, refitting and training.

-Cheers

Yup, and the counter-assumption which I don't think is realistic is that 1 isn't enough. One can either deploy according to one's strength or plot to have one strength to meet one's desired deployment.

You can call it luck but the reality is that RN had the carriers and used them successfully.

Whether RAN should have one in the first place, is a moot point. But I think if the RAN were given a carrier, they can find and they'd find good use for it.

The argument seems skewed towards more that the RAN has decided not to have one = its a totally bad idea. That's not the real case. A carrier has its uses. Is it cost-effective in RAN context, the Australian government and MoD doesn't seem to think so? (and to an extent I agree). Is a carrier really totally useless to the RAN, I disagree.

 

[t68]

its not RANs preferred option. Its what Govt was prepared to fund.

2 is better than none - it's also predicated on us not getting involved in a full shooting war without allied support.

if RAN had their way it would be a different story...

Have been reading plan blue 2006 format not the latest version, hear is a passage from plan blue which could be taken in so many different ways, but i still only reading what is available for public consumption.

Publicationlan Blue 2006/Future Navy - Royal Australian Navy

Quote

"Organisation of the Future Navy
49. The Future Fleet will need to be sustained for months at potentially great distances from Australia, often without host nation, forward operating base or coalition support. Integrated, Joint Task Groups (JTG) organised for the mission will feature in the future force. Navy and enabling organisations must be structured to provide rapid and flexible support under these conditions. Logistics, training, personnel and administration systems will support the rapid delivery of support packages to deployed fleet units operating at a high tempo in different parts of the world.

Future Navy Goals
59 a. The Future Navy [1] must comprise a fleet of adaptable, flexible multi-mission platforms.

b. The Future Navy must possess survivability through layered defence systems, signature management, platform robustness and system redundancy.
c. The Future Navy must be capable of operating effectively in the absence of continuous land-based, air-delivered capabilities and logistic support, or accept operational risk in these circumstances. Navy must be able to sustain itself and support joint or combined forces for the required operational viability periods from the sea. Navy must have the capability for sustained presence in the maritime areas of the littoral.
d. The Future Navy must be able to exchange C2 and targeting information within a joint and coalition environment. Navy must acquire precision weapons to complement increased knowledge and command and control capabilities to achieve an assured engagement capability.
e. The Future Navy must possess the Command, Control, Communications and Computers (C4) capabilities required to maintain interoperability with coalition forces in the future. This is particularly the case when operating with US forces.
f. The potential for block platform obsolescence in the period 2025-30 to generate potentially large capability gaps must be addressed by 2015.
g. The Future Navy, supported by enabling organisations, must ensure the cost effectiveness of through-life support for our major systems. "

As i said it can be read any way you choose and snippets of information can be manipulated to say any thing you want, as you stated yourself,” its not RANs preferred option. It’s what Govt was prepared to fund. “
And that quote is the devil in the detail.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/FMOC_2025_Unclassified.pdf

 

[Todjaeger]

Yup, and the counter-assumption which I don't think is realistic is that 1 isn't enough. One can either deploy according to one's strength or plot to have one strength to meet one's desired deployment.

You can call it luck but the reality is that RN had the carriers and used them successfully.

Whether RAN should have one in the first place, is a moot point. But I think if the RAN were given a carrier, they can find and they'd find good use for it.

The argument seems skewed towards more that the RAN has decided not to have one = its a totally bad idea. That's not the real case. A carrier has its uses. Is it cost-effective in RAN context, the Australian government and MoD doesn't seem to think so? (and to an extent I agree). Is a carrier really totally useless to the RAN, I disagree.

No, a single important unit like a carrier really is not enough, at least, not enough to provide a continous deployment capability. For some navies, having a single unit which is not always available due to training and maintenance cycles is acceptable. That has to do with the operational doctrine and strategic environment in which a particular navy and defence force operate in. Spain, Italy and France immediately come to mind in this instance.

In the case of the above three countries each either currently or is planning on operating a single aircraft carrier. Given that the primary area of operations for each navy is the north (above the equator) Atlantic Ocean and/or the Mediterranean Sea, the situation becomes quite different from where other nations like the UK, Australia, Canada or the US operate their respective navies. If there were to be some event which France, Italy or Spain were to become involved in and the situation would require the presence of aircraft carriers and similar assets, it would likely involve a number of other nearby nations and allies of the France, Italy and Spain. Like the US, UK and perhaps even the rest of NATO. This means that the coverage provided by any one of the carriers could potentially be made up by a carrier from another nation, and/or land-based aircraft that can operate over the Atlantic or Mediterranean.

The situation for countries like Australia and Canada, which operate vessels in areas where distance to land-based aircraft, and/or friendly ports and nations can be great, is different. Similarly, the USN and RN, which operate over large portions of the globe cannot automatically rely upon land-based aircraft support or friendly ports and navies. As an example, if do to some emergency, an aircraft carrier was required in the Pacific Ocean to provide fighter cover for an operation, and the USN did not have one available, who else could provide a carrier and/or fighter cover for a US taskforce in the Pacific? Realistically, no ofther navy could, since AFAIK only the Russian and Thai navies operate carriers in the Pacific. Given the size limitations of the Thai carrier, AFAIK it rarely deploys with Harriers, and I am uncertain whether or not the Russian Navy even deploys its carriers to the Pacific with any regularity.

What this boils down to, is that if a particular navy only operates a single aircraft carrier, then the navy can expect to deploy the carrier asset on planned operations. It also might be able to conduct a surge deployment depending on maintenance and training cycles in the event or an emergency, but for 'worst case' planning scenarios, the carrier cannot be assumed to be available/deployable for emergencyes and/or unplanned operational needs.

In the specific case of the RAN/ADF a carrier could certain provide valuable service. No one questions or disputes that. The question or perhaps dispute comes in when people either ignore the impact that a carrier purchase would have upon funding within the ADF (at current prices, a single CVF would cost ~ A$3 bil.) or assert that money currently being budgeted elsewhere would be better allocated towards a carrier. Assuming the RAN were to get a CVF-style aircraft carrier and have a comparable fitout and crew, then ~10% of RAN personnel would be posted to the carrier. Additionally, embarked airwing would comprise either a third of the RAAF fighter strength, or a re-constituted Fleet Air Arm would be effectively a third the size of the RAAF, with the associated costs to purchase and maintain.

Could Australia do so? Certainly. However it would either require a significant boost the ADF budget which is not likely to happen with a signifcantly increase threat of hostilities or outright war. Alternately, it would require a major change to Australian doctrine, force deployment and OrBat. In short, it is not worthwhile at present.

-Cheers

 

[t68]

No, a single important unit like a carrier really is not enough, at least, not enough to provide a continous deployment capability. For some navies, having a single unit which is not always available due to training and maintenance cycles is acceptable. That has to do with the operational doctrine and strategic environment in which a particular navy and defence force operate in. Spain, Italy and France immediately come to mind in this instance.

In the case of the above three countries each either currently or is planning on operating a single aircraft carrier. Given that the primary area of operations for each navy is the north (above the equator) Atlantic Ocean and/or the Mediterranean Sea, the situation becomes quite different from where other nations like the UK, Australia, Canada or the US operate their respective navies. If there were to be some event which France, Italy or Spain were to become involved in and the situation would require the presence of aircraft carriers and similar assets, it would likely involve a number of other nearby nations and allies of the France, Italy and Spain. Like the US, UK and perhaps even the rest of NATO. This means that the coverage provided by any one of the carriers could potentially be made up by a carrier from another nation, and/or land-based aircraft that can operate over the Atlantic or Mediterranean.

The situation for countries like Australia and Canada, which operate vessels in areas where distance to land-based aircraft, and/or friendly ports and nations can be great, is different. Similarly, the USN and RN, which operate over large portions of the globe cannot automatically rely upon land-based aircraft support or friendly ports and navies. As an example, if do to some emergency, an aircraft carrier was required in the Pacific Ocean to provide fighter cover for an operation, and the USN did not have one available, who else could provide a carrier and/or fighter cover for a US taskforce in the Pacific? Realistically, no ofther navy could, since AFAIK only the Russian and Thai navies operate carriers in the Pacific. Given the size limitations of the Thai carrier, AFAIK it rarely deploys with Harriers, and I am uncertain whether or not the Russian Navy even deploys its carriers to the Pacific with any regularity.

What this boils down to, is that if a particular navy only operates a single aircraft carrier, then the navy can expect to deploy the carrier asset on planned operations. It also might be able to conduct a surge deployment depending on maintenance and training cycles in the event or an emergency, but for 'worst case' planning scenarios, the carrier cannot be assumed to be available/deployable for emergencyes and/or unplanned operational needs.

In the specific case of the RAN/ADF a carrier could certain provide valuable service. No one questions or disputes that. The question or perhaps dispute comes in when people either ignore the impact that a carrier purchase would have upon funding within the ADF (at current prices, a single CVF would cost ~ A$3 bil.) or assert that money currently being budgeted elsewhere would be better allocated towards a carrier. Assuming the RAN were to get a CVF-style aircraft carrier and have a comparable fitout and crew, then ~10% of RAN personnel would be posted to the carrier. Additionally, embarked airwing would comprise either a third of the RAAF fighter strength, or a re-constituted Fleet Air Arm would be effectively a third the size of the RAAF, with the associated costs to purchase and maintain.

Could Australia do so? Certainly. However it would either require a significant boost the ADF budget which is not likely to happen with a signifcantly increase threat of hostilities or outright war. Alternately, it would require a major change to Australian doctrine, force deployment and OrBat. In short, it is not worthwhile at present.

-Cheers

The reason for a carrier(s) is in the detail of force planning, which comes back to what the government will actually fund. At no time am i asserting the we put a carrier(s) in place of other vital equipment, all I am saying is we can and do have the means to fund and operate a light carrier(s) in a balanced maritime force structure, no not a Nimitz style whiz bang you bute all singing and dancing as Sea Toby says TOPGUN carrier(s).

You have basically hit the nail on the head in having a balanced maritime force structure; it is a multi function multi mission force multiplier asset not only in DOA ops but coalition operations.

sorry GF must have been typing away at my slow pace as usual and did not see your post till i submitted my own, i suppose that's what you get when you type with one finger.

 

[Todjaeger]

The reason for a carrier(s) is in the detail of force planning, which comes back to what the government will actually fund. At no time am i asserting the we put a carrier(s) in place of other vital equipment, all I am saying is we can and do have the means to fund and operate a light carrier(s) in a balanced maritime force structure, no not a Nimitz style whiz bang you bute all singing and dancing as Sea Toby says TOPGUN carrier(s).

You have basically hit the nail on the head in having a balanced maritime force structure; it is a multi function multi mission force multiplier asset not only in DOA ops but coalition operations.

sorry GF must have been typing away at my slow pace as usual and did not see your post till i submitted my own, i suppose that's what you get when you type with one finger.

Actually, the cost of a carrier (CV, CVL, etc) needs to be balanced against other RAN requirements, as well as those of the RAAF and Army. Now a smaller carrier, some form of CVL, would almost certainly cost less than a Queen Elizabeth II-class CV. The funding still needs to come from somewhere. Which still gets back to either Government appropriating additional funding to the ADF to meet current and planned needs and the carrier, or the funding would have to come at the expense of something else the ADF either already has or also wants.

Now yes, a carrier is a force multiplier and tool for power projection, the question still gets back to what does Australia really want and/or need? If no additional funding is forthcoming, a carrier purchase would likely be at the expense of replacement transport aircraft (the DHC-4 and/or C-130H replacements), F-18A/B Hornet replacements (reduced F-35 and/or SHornet orders) or replacement surface vessels, either for sealift, or a smaller Anzac replacement order. That or entire units within Army could be disbanded.

In terms of Government voting additional funding for a carrier, assuming that funding was applied to a single defence budget/year and just covered the cost of the carrier itself, not any associated support facilities or units, it would likely require an additional ~6% increase in the ADF budget for that year. Nevermind the other required units to operate from and support the carrier, nor the ongoing and throughlife costs.

Australia could do it, but would need a good and sufficient reason to do so. At present, given other options and needs, the funding to regain and maintain a carrier capability does not seem sufficiently valuable.

-Cheers

 

[xhxi558]

Much of the discussion around a hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN is based around the ability/desire of the Govt to fund.

Based upon my really simple calcs the funding of Defence currently looks like this (all in 2010 $):
- $25b base with 3.0% real funding increases out to 2018
- 2010 $25b
- 2040 $32b
- 30 year period $926b

If we were to maintain defence spending at 2.0% of GDP, Defence funding might look as follows:
- Maintaining 2.0% of GDP
- 2010 $25b
- 2040 $60b
- 30 year period $1,214b
- Additional $288b over current funding

Australia might be forced to increase Defence spending as a result of the changing strategic position in the Asia/Pacific region arising from the below and creating a 3 or 4 multi polar power environment:
- Declining US spending (given their budget position it has to decline)
- China fielding submarines and maybe carriers, as well as potentiall building bases in Timor and Fiji to complement their facilities in Pakistan
- A rising India competing with China
- Russia getting itself in order, Japan getting scared, a non-aligned movement?

Increased budget spending could see:
- Increasing to 2.5% of GDP
- 2010 $25b
- 2040 $75b
- 30 year period $1,518b
- Additional $592b over current funding

or

- Increasing to 3.0% of GDP
- 2010 $25b
- 2040 $90b
- 30 year period $1,821b
- Additional $896b over current funding (almost doubling current spending)

Obviously these figures do not take into account the fact that the cost of defence rises faster than inflation or that the Australian economy might not average 3% growth pa over the 30 year period. However all three numbers are affordable (though not necessarily without some strain).

Given that that based upon current funding shortfalls, Defence would need to just maintain 2% of GDP funding for the current white paper, what are the possibilities if Defence were to be funded beyond this?

Carriers would certainly be a possibility.