All of this is a long way off, I can't see a dignificant decline in USN projection capability. There maybe a very strong case that the replacement of the Camberra's should be more multi role and fixed wing capable. However as the current ships have not even joined the fleet probably a bit premature.
A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?
- Thread starter t68
- Start date
- Status
The govt has taken $20bn away from Aust defence for the next 10 years. it was not negotiated, Defence has to cut projects if it wants to maintain capability. we aren't allowed to employ contractors, reservists are getting their hours cut (the fall back when we can't hire civilians) and
thats approx what it would cost to sustain a task force for 10 years - that does not factor in more than one task force, it does not factor in buying fixed wing combat aircraft and their own sustainment costs to stay in service.
the govt took away $20bn for a reason.
why would we even bother wasting money on a task force when we have a clear and present shortfall in tactical medium lift, heavy helos, soldier 21 constructs, and more importantly, all the work happening on NCW (its not visible, so its not sexy to the general public, but its more important by a golden mile than a carrier with limited utility)
do we cut all the work in geospatial, in intelligence developments, in sensor developments?
planners have to seriously look at what we sacrifice for every major piece of kit we need. we DON'T have a bottomless pit of money.
all the GDP figures and treasury stats in the world don't change the fact that a carrier task force - let alone the essential min 2 or better 3 needed for proper force redundancy would kill off far more important capabilities which offer real relevant and essential capability in the next 25 years.
if you don't have the proper force structure to field, deploy and defend a carrier, then you have a target. on terminal countdown
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
We could find the funds for it, sure. Finding the people for it will be harder and actually getting it to sea and operating fight jets will be even harder still.
Then of course one can wonder what it will actually achieve for the resources it consumes? ADF's primary mission is the defence of Australia, and you would have the primary defence platform operated by the Navy, the one which absorbs the most amount of resources and the one which also happens to provide virtually zero capability in a defence of Australia scenario...
Nice plan. It would provide some capability for expeditionary operations, but without coalition support, will be extremely vulnerable in a high threat environment with the level of escorts Australia could actually provide it...
Other than that, it'd provide a very nice looking white elephant...
How about this... a far feched white elephant, but more realistic than Aussie running a CVF or Nimitz.
Another 1 (or 2 perhaps) LHD with more specific fixed wing capabilities (fuel and weapon bunkerage, some dedicated maintence for example). Say 75% as capable as the current LHD in amphibious operations if required. The additional fuel bunkerage may be useful as fleet oiler or for amphib helo operation etc.
Then a pool of 16 F-35B's, and several carrier based fixed wing UAV's (~20?). Not all would be deployed at the same time, and could be launched, recovered and refuelled off the regular LHD's. Now you are talking about 3 or 4 ships, of which you would have atleast one always avalible and most likely two. You could sustain 1 ship at all times, and two for a significant period. With four ships, you could surge all three (for a big international effort).
F-35B fitted with probes for a2a refuelling meaning they could operate 90%+ as the same missions as the F-35A's from land bases. But would be specifically useful over water, a broken probe or delayed/damaged refueller would not require the F-35B pilot to ditch in the ocean but land on a carrier. Aircraft could be forward based on the carrier. Aircraft could be refuelled and rearmed on the carrier. I would imagine landbased refuelling aircraft would operate over the carrier to extend flight time, range etc.
Cost of the carrier? Lets say a billion. Aircraft? lets say a billion. Crewing? It would be a big ask, yet achieveable, and could be crossed with the other LHD's.
And to get that carrier we would need atleast 1 more AWD more likely 2.
If we had:
12 subs with 8xTlam, 8xharpoon, 20xtorpedos
5 AWD's with SM-3, tlam, sm6, essm, laser phalanx
2 fully fitted LHD + 1 sealift (bay class?)
8 ANZAC II PAC3, tlam, sm6, essm, phalanx
20 OCV with Harpoon, Phanlax
14 patrol boats
30 NH90 RAN helos
6 LCAC + other landing craft
And Army who was fully equiped and 15% larger, a RAAF with 100 F-35A's already delivered and perhaps a few more refuellers and AWACs. And we had a pressing need for a carrier (ie US decline, rising regional powers).
Another 1 (or 2 perhaps) LHD with more specific fixed wing capabilities (fuel and weapon bunkerage, some dedicated maintence for example). Say 75% as capable as the current LHD in amphibious operations if required. The additional fuel bunkerage may be useful as fleet oiler or for amphib helo operation etc.
Then a pool of 16 F-35B's, and several carrier based fixed wing UAV's (~20?). Not all would be deployed at the same time, and could be launched, recovered and refuelled off the regular LHD's. Now you are talking about 3 or 4 ships, of which you would have atleast one always avalible and most likely two. You could sustain 1 ship at all times, and two for a significant period. With four ships, you could surge all three (for a big international effort).
F-35B fitted with probes for a2a refuelling meaning they could operate 90%+ as the same missions as the F-35A's from land bases. But would be specifically useful over water, a broken probe or delayed/damaged refueller would not require the F-35B pilot to ditch in the ocean but land on a carrier. Aircraft could be forward based on the carrier. Aircraft could be refuelled and rearmed on the carrier. I would imagine landbased refuelling aircraft would operate over the carrier to extend flight time, range etc.
Cost of the carrier? Lets say a billion. Aircraft? lets say a billion. Crewing? It would be a big ask, yet achieveable, and could be crossed with the other LHD's.
And to get that carrier we would need atleast 1 more AWD more likely 2.
If we had:
12 subs with 8xTlam, 8xharpoon, 20xtorpedos
5 AWD's with SM-3, tlam, sm6, essm, laser phalanx
2 fully fitted LHD + 1 sealift (bay class?)
8 ANZAC II PAC3, tlam, sm6, essm, phalanx
20 OCV with Harpoon, Phanlax
14 patrol boats
30 NH90 RAN helos
6 LCAC + other landing craft
And Army who was fully equiped and 15% larger, a RAAF with 100 F-35A's already delivered and perhaps a few more refuellers and AWACs. And we had a pressing need for a carrier (ie US decline, rising regional powers).
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Is it doable? Sure, but it still runs into the issue of either requiring a fairly significant injection of additional resources to Defence, at a time when Defence is being required to cut back on expenditures. That, or the capability would come at the expense of other Defence activities and procurement.
It might be a less significant expenditure in terms of cost vs. a CVF or CVN, but still significant.
-Cheers
Oh definately. In the current climate no, no carriers for the RAN. The RAN will be lucky to get what was already agreed to and then be able to adiquately operate, train and man it.
In 10 years, provided we have a super resources boom, and during that boom we strengthen our manufacturing and retail sectors to prop the whole thing together so we can continue to operate all this stuff. Also provided we get that was origionally outlined in the whitepaper. Then it may be concidered (or ruled out).
The LHD's we have choosen will be able to operate as an poor man emergency carrier or assist other carriers at the expense of its origional mission. Certainly not ideal, but for a small navy potentially useful and supportive of a single carrier.
But if we had 3 or 4 with 2 having specific carrier modifications then we could operate them as lillypad carriers or very light carriers. Proberly not completely out of range of our fixed wing resources (AWAC and refuellers at the very least and atleast overlapping with fixed wing f-18/F-35) but certainly extending our region of operations.
In 10 years, provided we have a super resources boom, and during that boom we strengthen our manufacturing and retail sectors to prop the whole thing together so we can continue to operate all this stuff. Also provided we get that was origionally outlined in the whitepaper. Then it may be concidered (or ruled out).
The LHD's we have choosen will be able to operate as an poor man emergency carrier or assist other carriers at the expense of its origional mission. Certainly not ideal, but for a small navy potentially useful and supportive of a single carrier.
But if we had 3 or 4 with 2 having specific carrier modifications then we could operate them as lillypad carriers or very light carriers. Proberly not completely out of range of our fixed wing resources (AWAC and refuellers at the very least and atleast overlapping with fixed wing f-18/F-35) but certainly extending our region of operations.
That's the punch line - and not just for RAN.
You could save money by just substituting say 20 F35a for F35b. The potentially significant capability of the ANZAC II may mitigate against the need to have 2 AWD, however there probably is a case for a 4th anyway.
How can Australia save any funds buying F-35As instead of F-35Bs when Australia never had any intentions of buying F-35Bs? And as far as a light carrier is concerned, F-35As don't have the landing gears suitable for a arrested carrier landing... For arrested carrier landings Australia would need to buy F-35Cs, or buy F-3Bs for vertical landings...
Plus Australia has no intentions of buying a light carrier either, not with the dreaded budget cuts looming...
Sorry to Dig up an old thread but...
Royal Navy aircraft carrier will be sold after three years - and never carry jets - Telegraph
If this is true (And the guys not just blowing smoke out his arse) does this not present an opportunity for Australia that changes things?
I fully expect the fact people are gonna come and whine about needing a minimum of 2 carriers for a continual carrier force. But the Brits are gonna make do with 1 QE Carrier HMS Ocean and HMS Ark Royal as Helicopter carriers.
Cant we make do with 1 QE and 2 Canberras?
Lets face it Australias Economy is booming compared to most western nations at the moment and when are we ever going to get an opportunity like this again? Shiny brand new carrier fully modernised, Small crewing requirements (By Small i mean compared to most carriers) Interchangeaility between the RAAF's F35A and F35C used on carriers?
Royal Navy aircraft carrier will be sold after three years - and never carry jets - Telegraph
If this is true (And the guys not just blowing smoke out his arse) does this not present an opportunity for Australia that changes things?
I fully expect the fact people are gonna come and whine about needing a minimum of 2 carriers for a continual carrier force. But the Brits are gonna make do with 1 QE Carrier HMS Ocean and HMS Ark Royal as Helicopter carriers.
Cant we make do with 1 QE and 2 Canberras?
Lets face it Australias Economy is booming compared to most western nations at the moment and when are we ever going to get an opportunity like this again? Shiny brand new carrier fully modernised, Small crewing requirements (By Small i mean compared to most carriers) Interchangeaility between the RAAF's F35A and F35C used on carriers?
Because of the SDR cuts to the RN there is a window of opportunity for the RAN to acquire a carrier capability with far less drama than what would usually apply. This includes not just buying the surplus British ships and aircraft but importantly for lateral recruitment of the RN personnel who will be doing little for the next 10 years.
The best solution for the RAN would be the Queen Elizabeth as it is being built and an air wing of F-35Bs. That way when the carrier is in refit the air wing can still train from an LHD. You could probably buy the ship from HM Govt. for $2-3 billion (AUD) and have them take onboard all the risk. Cost of 24 F-35Bs would be around $4 billion but would not be available until 2020ish. The fleet air arm could be trained up on any kind of gap fill aircraft, even ex RNZAF, ex RAN Skyhawks.
But despite the bargains available it would still cost billions and it doesn’t appear that the Australian government has the capacity for this kind of strategic adventurism at the moment.
The best solution for the RAN would be the Queen Elizabeth as it is being built and an air wing of F-35Bs. That way when the carrier is in refit the air wing can still train from an LHD. You could probably buy the ship from HM Govt. for $2-3 billion (AUD) and have them take onboard all the risk. Cost of 24 F-35Bs would be around $4 billion but would not be available until 2020ish. The fleet air arm could be trained up on any kind of gap fill aircraft, even ex RNZAF, ex RAN Skyhawks.
But despite the bargains available it would still cost billions and it doesn’t appear that the Australian government has the capacity for this kind of strategic adventurism at the moment.
i see your point but dont agree with that, if the governments willing to spend 30bn+ on desining and building our own subs when a couple off the shelf euros would be 10-15bn thats Adventurism in my mind.
i know id rather have 15bn to play around with than homegrown subs.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
The sub fleet is a core element in ADF doctrine and govt sees a bad ass SSK/G fleet as increasing our strategic weight regionally and acting as a form of deterrent, a single carrier probably wouldn’t do the same. Plus you have to remember that investing in home grown mean investing in Aus R&D base which pays off long term. Still bargain basement prices.
The SDR states that Charlie's will be bought instead of the Bravos and putting the associated "Cats and Traps" on the QE's will push right the in-service date four years to 2020.
It is beyond me why Brittan ever wanted to get Bravos, with a carrier that big it a criminal waste not buy Charlie's.
I really doubt that it will take four years to modify the QE's as Brittan has already designed and recently tested the catapult they developed as risk mitigation. More likely it an excuse by the Tories to save some more money.
Problem being with this point of view is its based on bullshit. Not saying you're responsible for the bullshit but someone has feed it to you. The OTS European submarines would not be capable of the Australian mission. They would be next to useless. Also they would have to be made in Europe to cost so low in which case that's $15 billion you've just sent overseas that won't be reinvested in the Australian economy and tax base just so we can have an ASW training asset for sailing around the east and west coasts of Australia.
Because the RN carrier with F-35Bs would be far more capable than one with F-35Cs. The extra range of the F-35C is just on paper. Because it is a CTOL aircraft you need to fly in cyclic operations which means a safety margin of at least 25% fuel on return to carrier. So your radius of action is 12.5% smaller than the F-35B. Also you can only fly high intensity for 12 hours each day and have no option for low intensity 24 hours a day or any particular mix of intensity tailoring to need. You can also only have half the air wing available for a particular mission package at any one time.
I agree with Abraham, if we did end up getting a QE, F35B would be best for us because the Canberras could be certified to operate them and keep up training while the QE was in refit.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
After going through all that hassle of arguing that a carrier capability isn't needed ie Canberra doesn't need ramps, to do a u-turn at this juncture would be a massive flip-flop for the Australian govt.
Not that it hasn't been done before. There's enough time to budget for the carrier no doubt.
But the requirement needs to be addressed. For FPDA commitment, there more than sufficient air bases + rights to allow -As to be based. Unlike UK, Australia doesn't need to defend overseas dependencies (unless one counts christmas island which is within range of F-35As). Mostly, the CVF would be used in the escort role rather than power projection.
There is a question about whether its the right size.
To maximise CVF use, 36 a/c complement taking into account 75% serviceability etc would normally require ~48. That's 50% to 66% of planned F-35 buy with the initial batch of -As already ordered.
Operating it merely at the UK intended peacetime complement of just 12 jets is a massive waste of capacity imho.
Again that's pitched against converting a canberra to a CVE role (which may end up far cheaper than just buying the QE carrier outright and may be the right size for the job).
Whoever's in procurement would find it a difficult pitch with lots of potential pitfalls.
After going through all that hassle of arguing that a carrier capability isn't needed ie Canberra doesn't need ramps, to do a u-turn at this juncture would be a massive flip-flop for the Australian govt.
Not that it hasn't been done before. There's enough time to budget for the carrier no doubt.
But the requirement needs to be addressed. For FPDA commitment, there more than sufficient air bases + rights to allow -As to be based. Unlike UK, Australia doesn't need to defend overseas dependencies (unless one counts christmas island which is within range of F-35As). Mostly, the CVF would be used in the escort role rather than power projection.
There is a question about whether its the right size.
To maximise CVF use, 36 a/c complement taking into account 75% serviceability etc would normally require ~48. That's 50% to 66% of planned F-35 buy with the initial batch of -As already ordered.
Operating it merely at the UK intended peacetime complement of just 12 jets is a massive waste of capacity imho.
Again that's pitched against converting a canberra to a CVE role (which may end up far cheaper than just buying the QE carrier outright and may be the right size for the job).
Whoever's in procurement would find it a difficult pitch with lots of potential pitfalls.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
But then you'd effectively constantly deploy 25% of the fighter force, and the most capable 25%. If you want the RAAF at proper strength you would need to replace the Rhino's or the RAAF has in effect 3 fighter squadrons instead of 4.
The question I have to ask in all this is for what purpose? What utility would the ADF get out of a single carrier? How would fit with current doctrine and strategic posture?
- Status