A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[gf0012-aust]

Vietnam was a war of choice.

excellent reference for this is Sextons "War for the Asking" - it shows (with Hansard refs) how Australia invited itself into Vietnam even though the US was only after symbolic presence. We actually offered up more than what the US wanted - including 2 x squadrons of Mirages. Even the Sth Vietnamese rejected an Aust presence and we ignored them.

blaming the US for Australias entry into Vietnam is another continuing urban myth that won't go away....

Korea and GW1 were UN sponsored

Konfrontassi was at the request of the Malaysian Govt - not UK Govt

 

[Todjaeger]

You forgot one of the other critical lessons is that AAW pickets can't be relied on completely as they don't 100% reliability as there were many examples of ships being unable to fulfill their roles due to unreliable systems. Such as HMS Cardiff missiles system not working so a crew member had to go out with a sleghammer to make it work.

Actually, I had not forgotten that. Based upon what I do, I automatically assume that systems will fail at some point, and that nothing is 100% certain (excepting Death and Taxes). Even CAP will have failures at some point to one degree or another. Part of the reason for having an AEW & CAP presence, as well as area air defence ships like the AWD and perhaps CIWS and/or point defence weapon systems, is to provide an LHD, CV, or whatever other high value target, with as much protection as possible, and to have it arranged in cooperative layers.

Whilst I would agree that CAP and AEW is the way to go, it probably comes down to what threat your country models for. A Falklands era Type 42 would be overwhelmed by 2x2 ships arriving simultaneously, maybe under optimal conditions a Type 42/22 combo could get enough missiles in the air to just about survive 2 x 4 ships, im not sure. If we look at the exocet threat ,they only had 5 missiles, fired 2 at the task force I think on two occasions,hitting sheffield and the Conveyer on two missions, but they had 14 Etendards, so had missiles been freely available , and with only SHAR providing cover they could have overwhelmed the RN fleet easily. That looks terrible for a navy on the receiving end but roll on 28 years Australia will have SPY on the AWD.

Now how many inbounds can SPY take out?, I know they only have three directors but I assume each is needed for the very last few seconds of intercept?. We will never be told the figure, but improved from the falklands era? yes definately.

I read an article about the Kidd class when the were upgraded for Taiwan, I will try to find it .In some computer model wargame, a Kidd downed 16 Su30's before being sunk, which is pretty impressive, afterall, what small nation would want to lose 16 jets? China would, 64 Sukhois for 4 Kidds might be fair odds to the most populated country in the world. Its different if you face a smaller nation. If country A has 16 mig29's in its inventory then an AWD is too tough a target, it it has 200 Mig 29's then maybe not, but who has them in those numbers? Only the big boys.

I assume AWD and SPY is a big step forward from The Kidd class, which I think were based on the AEGIS rival, the NTU new threat upgrade, designed to modernise the 1970' era US fleet,so I suspect they can handle a very large number of simultaneous threats, the question is, is that number too big to make it unpallatable for an enemy to even try?

There arent many airforces willing to risk losing two squadrons of expensive aircraft just to try and sink something protected by an AWD.

The AWD is designed to defend against saturation attacks, the last country, Argentina, that expended 50% of its airforce has never recovered its pre war strength.If you can service and simultaneously support and deploy 15 aircraft and 30 anti ship missiles at one time, in one throw of the dice, you might just sink a Hobart, If you cant then would you bother?

Anyway Im slightly lagered, so I apologise for anything stupid I have just typed.

Honestly, I am not terribly worried about the AWD's SPY-1D array and its ability to deal with saturation attacks. Rather my concern is that with the increase in numbers of long-ranged standoff weaponry, it is possible for the launching aircraft to take warshots at a RAN taskforce with effective impunity. Not of the inbounds might hit a target, being subject to interception beforehand, but in such a situation, the RAN would not be in a position to stop any of the shots from being taken, the taskforce would always remain on the defensive.

Now with the presence of a CAP, those very same launching aircraft could be intercepted and driven off or destroyed. Another alternative, that attacking nation might be forced to provide fighter escorts in an attempt to keep the launching aircraft safe. Either way, a CAP presence would significantly increase both the risk and cost of firing upon any RAN taskforce with a CV present.

-Cheers

 

[t68]

excellent reference for this is Sextons "War for the Asking" - it shows (with Hansard refs) how Australia invited itself into Vietnam even though the US was only after symbolic presence. We actually offered up more than what the US wanted - including 2 x squadrons of Mirages. Even the Sth Vietnamese rejected an Aust presence and we ignored them.

blaming the US for Australias entry into Vietnam is another continuing urban myth that won't go away....

Korea and GW1 were UN sponsored

Konfrontassi was at the request of the Malaysian Govt - not UK Govt

Yes, Prime Minister Menzies was spoiling for a fight in South Vietnam under the communist domino theory. But i suspect it was more to do with currying favour with the US admistration and the ANZUS treaty.
I did not know about Konfrontassi i had presumed it was under a British Commonwealth undertaking.

 

[RAAF-35]

Why is it that topics always seem to get taken away from their original point?

 

[Moonstone]

Why is it that topics always seem to get taken away from their original point?

Entropy .

 

[t68]

sorry my fault,i will stay on topic

 

[gf0012-aust]

I did not know about Konfrontassi i had presumed it was under a British Commonwealth undertaking.

I'd say it was one of those chicken or egg situations, the Malays certainly asked for help, but under the aegis of the Commonwealth...

 

[riksavage]

I'd say it was one of those chicken or egg situations, the Malays certainly asked for help, but under the aegis of the Commonwealth...

One asumes this was under the five powers defence agreement following the UK's withdraw from Asia?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

One asumes this was under the five powers defence agreement following the UK's withdraw from Asia?

No. FPDA was from 1971. Confrontation was from 62-66.

 

[riksavage]

No. FPDA was from 1971. Confrontation was from 62-66.

Obviously signed as a result of, not prior to then.

 

[harryriedl]

It's a small point, but on 21 May 1982 the aviation group on the Hermes and Invincible was (source The Royal Navy and the Falklands War, David Brown, Head of Naval Historical Branch):

Hermes:
15 Sea Harrier FRS1
6 Harrier GR3
6 Sea King HAS5
2 Lynx
1 Wessex 5

Invincible:
10 Sea Harrier FRS1
9 Sea King HAS5
1 Lynx

TOTAL CARRIER GROUP
25 Sea Harrier FRS1 ) 31 Harriers
6 Harrier GR3 )
15 Sea King HAS5 ) 19 Helos
3 Lynx )
1 Wessex 5 )

While clearly out-numbered, the UK carrier fixed wing aircraft were operating relatively locally compared to the Argentine aircraft, which were at the limit of their endurance.

I believe that was the air group at the end of the war after the reinforcements from Atlantic conveyor and the other vessels reinforcing the Falklands
According to Martin Middlebrooks Falklands War their was only 20 sea harriers till the reinforcements after May 1st

Actually, I had not forgotten that. Based upon what I do, I automatically assume that systems will fail at some point, and that nothing is 100% certain (excepting Death and Taxes). Even CAP will have failures at some point to one degree or another. Part of the reason for having an AEW & CAP presence, as well as area air defence ships like the AWD and perhaps CIWS and/or point defence weapon systems, is to provide an LHD, CV, or whatever other high value target, with as much protection as possible, and to have it arranged in cooperative layers.



-Cheers

My apologies I was just reiforcing the point that you need as many assets as possible to act as a shield for HVT to cover problems in each

 

[AegisFC]

Now how many inbounds can SPY take out?, I know they only have three directors but I assume each is needed for the very last few seconds of intercept?. We will never be told the figure, but improved from the falklands era? yes definately.

The F-100's have 2 directors, how many SM-2's or ESSM's the system can handle for most of the missiles flight is a different number than the number of illuminators the ship has. So a ship with only two illuminators can still deal with a fairly large number of targets. Also Australia is also getting SM-6 which does not need terminal illumination.
You are also ignoring ship mounted EW systems like NULKA, SLQ-32 (not sure what systems the AWD will use though) and the different types of rounds that can be launched out of a ship mounted chaff launcher.

I assume AWD and SPY is a big step forward from The Kidd class, which I think were based on the AEGIS rival, the NTU new threat upgrade, designed to modernise the 1970' era US fleet,so I suspect they can handle a very large number of simultaneous threats, the question is, is that number too big to make it unpallatable for an enemy to even try?

NTU was never an Aegis rival. NTU was simply an upgrade of existing radars and launchers with an upgraded computer suite, a CND style management system and upgraded CIC equipment.

 

[aricho87]

Current Plans

While we have all seen the current gov plans to increase the sub force in the coming future, i like a lot of people out there would love to see the return of the carrier!

When thinking about the role our Defense force plays in the current region and for future plans. There has not been too many wars in our neighbor hood other than minor coups and rebellions. The largest role our defense force has seen in our direct theater of operations (SEA - pacific)in recent years has been mainly humanitarian roles and disaster relief.

So i ask how can an increased sub force increase our presence and abilities in our theater of operations? Well the answer is Sweet F#*K all!

While the role of Subs(that are planned) in a conventional shooting war with an advanced country are all very well, they can target enemy shipping and shoot cruise missiles that serve little to no practical purpose in peace time.

As opposed to either a 3rd LHD Canberra or a more dedicated light/medium carrier which can be used in a multitude of roles from offensive air -operations, maritime strike to humanitarian/disaster assistance. The true ability of countries military might i believe is in its ability to project power around the world. If Aus was to have the ability of that light/medium carrier it could be supplemented by the other Canberra's during training & maintenance and would not only increase our presence in our theater but across the globe!

The direction the current gov is taking the navy fails to meet what i believe our future needs. While i'm well aware of the state of the budget in the future i am just voicing my opinion and would love to hear what everyone else thinks!

 

[Bonza]

I think you're selling the extremely substantial ISR capabilities of our submarines short. They're not just useful in wartime, they are very, very potent intelligence gathering platforms.

An example of just how useful they are in this role would be the operations undertaken by the old RAN Oberons in keeping track of the Soviet fleet during the Cold War. The range, stealth and surveillance capability necessary to do this speaks volumes about the submarine's utility outside of the "shooter" platform role. When you consider the region in which we reside and the changing naval and political environment, the peacetime uses of a strong submarine capability cannot be understated.

I'm sure if gf0012-aust is lurking he could tell you far more, but if you wish to read some more on the RAN's submarine activities during the Cold War, the following article might prove an interesting start:

untitled

I think it serves to illustrate the non-wartime uses of submarines, and certainly you can imagine the increases in such capability that are afforded by new generation submarines. Hope you enjoy the link.

 

[Sea Toby]

While we have all seen the current gov plans to increase the sub force in the coming future, i like a lot of people out there would love to see the return of the carrier!

When thinking about the role our Defense force plays in the current region and for future plans. There has not been too many wars in our neighbor hood other than minor coups and rebellions. The largest role our defense force has seen in our direct theater of operations (SEA - pacific)in recent years has been mainly humanitarian roles and disaster relief.

So i ask how can an increased sub force increase our presence and abilities in our theater of operations? Well the answer is Sweet F#*K all!

While the role of Subs(that are planned) in a conventional shooting war with an advanced country are all very well, they can target enemy shipping and shoot cruise missiles that serve little to no practical purpose in peace time.

As opposed to either a 3rd LHD Canberra or a more dedicated light/medium carrier which can be used in a multitude of roles from offensive air -operations, maritime strike to humanitarian/disaster assistance. The true ability of countries military might i believe is in its ability to project power around the world. If Aus was to have the ability of that light/medium carrier it could be supplemented by the other Canberra's during training & maintenance and would not only increase our presence in our theater but across the globe!

The direction the current gov is taking the navy fails to meet what i believe our future needs. While i'm well aware of the state of the budget in the future i am just voicing my opinion and would love to hear what everyone else thinks!

Those who support light carriers continue to use the Falklands as support... They want a light carrier for offensive strike missions... The largest threat to the British task force was the Argie Air Force based in Argentina....

NOT ONCE DID THE BRITISH TASK FORCE AIRCRAFT STRIKE ARGIE AIR FORCE BASES! They were barely able to provide a loose CAP at the extreme range of the Argie Air Force... The Briitish had two light carriers... What makes anyone think the Aussies could do so with one light carrier?

Australia does not need a light carrier. Any air strikes can be done with Aussie Air Force aircraft in the South Pacific with more strength than any light carrier will provide... Stop chasing RED HERRINGS!

 

[StingrayOZ]

NOT ONCE DID THE BRITISH TASK FORCE AIRCRAFT STRIKE ARGIE AIR FORCE BASES! They were barely able to provide a loose CAP at the extreme range of the Argie Air Force... The Briitish had two light carriers... What makes anyone think the Aussies could do so with one light carrier?

But the RAF did try to strike the Argie bases, and that was hardly successful or endorcement of long range land based airstriking. It highlighted the weaknesses of operating aircraft at extreme ranges. They were long range bombers as well, not medium range multirole strike fighters.

Regionally Australia isn't facing anything like what the UK was facing. A few modern multirole aircraft on a flattop would be hugely effective in this region. Many countries can count the number of modernish aircraft (not just fighters) that have operational (of any kind) capability on a single hand!

Regionally who would we need such equipment for? The airforces regionally that would have any sort of capability would be Singapore, Japan and China. I don't think Australia is terribly worried about Singapore or Japan at this stage.

Any carrier Australia had would not be to striking those countries directly from a carrier. But a carrier could be useful to assist in interception or deterrent of aircraft away from Australia and her interests.

While I think mainland Australia is never going to be under threat there are areas that may be exposed. Remote islands and terroritories, developing nations such as East Timor, PNG, and various pacific nations. There may be times where due to a complex political situation the US is on one side and Australia is on the other side of the fence, due to a bigger picture issue interests may be in different directions.

The carrier would not be a permanent solution, but one that would simply buy time or reduce options to opposing forces. That time may be very important. While the US would no doubt assist Australia in an all out war, against Australian citizens. I think in a murkier situation, EEZ, resources, a 3rd party nation etc, a decision would be made, but it may be further down on the USA priority list than Australia's and the way they may assist might not be what your expecting.

I think the biggest lessons out of the Faulklands is that if you want things done your way you need the tools to do it, wars don't always come from the enemies you think you will fight and that having a superpower doesn't solve all the worlds problems.

Im not arguing that the RAN desperately needs a carrier. I think that is a waste of money (at this stage). But the RAN should be structured to accept a carrier if needed, and that possibly a set of (perhaps remote and unlikely) circumstances could arise that having one would be a very good thing. I believe that its currently the case with the LHD and AWD, while the RAN hasn't been structured to preclude a carrier, it does not mean the RAN is getting a dedicated fulltime aircraft carrier.

 

[aussienscale]

So just to get us back on track and keeping with the "Hypothetical" nature of the thread, if it was to "Hypothetically" happen I would like to see a modified Canberra class for several reasons.
To modify a Canberra class on the back of the current constructions would make sence financially, and would be smart from a maint and operational point of view as well. Similar platform with common operating systems make it much easier to maintain and better logistically as well. A modified Canberra without the welldock deck specifically designed for STOVL operations, increased fuel and ammo bunkerage, obviously more appropriate self defence systems, air control etc. The advantage of this is that when it is in refit you can still maintain the flight crews, pilots etc on the LHD's. Unlike the old days of ship design, all these things are now done on computer, so to do so along with the Spanish learnings from the PDA, would not be very difficult at all. And with Spain potentially replacing the PDA with a modified version of the LHD anyway, I would not be surprised if plans have not aready (or are in the process of) being done ? The one thing that may be considered is the propulsion system of the ship ? would you stay with the current system ? Without the weight of the well dock deck would the overall top speed of the ship increase due to less bulk ? potentiall into the 25/26 knot range, or would you convert the extra space into 4 LM2500 running 2 shafts for a better matched speed to the AWD's, Anzac II's etc ?
Here is a pic that was posted in the JC thread
[ame]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e314/MAC1966/PDA2_2.jpg[/ame]

That brings us to who will fly and maintain the aircraft ?? While I would love to see the FAA run these out of Nowra (The ex pusser in me) for the potential number of airframes needed, once again from a financial and maint point of view the RAAF would be the smart option. Obviously before the ship comes into port most aircraft actually leave the ship for the air base for maint etc, so no different if they are instead heading to Williamtown where you already have trained maintainers and logistical support ? Just a thought
Makes me wonder if the Falkland's had not happened and we did get the the Brit carrier where would we be at now ? Would we still be buying the LHD's ? or would we be buying 2 STOVL carriers ?

 

[StevoJH]

Makes me wonder if the Falkland's had not happened and we did get the the Brit carrier where would we be at now ? Would we still be buying the LHD's ? or would we be buying 2 STOVL carriers ?

I don't know, but it has been shown by several nations including the US, UK and Australia that while Carriers can rerole as LPH's, LPH's & LHD's cannot realistically rerole as Aircraft carriers.

Examples being HMAS Sydney, USS Kittyhawk, the Essex Class conversions, Centaur class conversions and the Invincible class.

 

[riksavage]

Whilst we all like to hark back to the Falklands, times have changed, there are now so many deep strike systems available to supplement what was then expected to be carried by strike carrier aircraft. With Tac-Tom nations have the ability to neutralise littoral enemy air bases (targetting pilot accommodation and aircraft staging areas) at the outset of hostilities thus removing part of the threat to the fleet early on, after all the best form of defence is always attack. The only constraint being the political will to take the fight to the enemies shore rather than keep it localised (Falklands style exclusion zone). If the UK had submarine launched Tomahawk's in 82 they would have most definitely used them against Argentina's littoral air bases. Thatcher would have signed the order as soon as Sheffield was whacked, failure to do so would have exposed her to huge criticism at home for failing to protect servicemen's lives and demonstrate appropriate duty of care.

The advantage of having a Carrier is the fixed wing aircraft can fulfil a myriad of tasks (CAP, CAS, SEAD, Reccon, Fly-by warning etc) and can deploy munitions in large numbers, which cost a fraction of the price of a Tac-Tom or equivalent long range system. This cost advantage is offset however by the number of resources needed to operate, maintain and keep fix-wing assets carrier qualified.

Looking forward, if Aus upgrades/buys Tac-Tom capable deep strike submarines, which have the ability to hurt an enemy at range you remove one of the requirements for carrier based aircraft. Also I can't see a scenario whereby Aus needs ship borne CAP, which would not involve the Americans or the UK (five powers defence agreement). Other than a Pearl Harbour style surprise attack I would expect to see an American strike carrier in the vicinity in a matter of days. If we look at a drawnout Korea style confrontation the Aussie fleet would form part of a coalition task force including carriers from a number of UN member nations.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Escort carriers used to serve as stop-gap carriers. That meant providing limited fleet air defence in the escort role and supporting amphibious landings in the secondary role. That role evolved into the sea control ship concept in the 60/70s and then to the LHD concept we see today which has been validated.

Non-fighter capable LHDs perform the secondary role with helos and may perform the escort role in the ASW dimension. That's probably the capability of the Canberras.

Light carriers were intended to supplement fleet carriers. That meant fleet speed with limited fighter/strike capabilities but operate singularly in less contested waters. That was the role of the Melbourne until 1982 (although there were plans to convert it into an ASW helo carrier). Ironically, that singular carrier provided stellar service until it was supposed to be replaced by the Invincible.

In its service, fixed wing a/c and subs have never been able to fully replicate the capabilities of the Melbourne. However, that since its de-commissioning, I agree Australian defence needs has changed.

So I will dedicate this post to the memory of the HMAS Melbourne (the namesake of its equally beautiful city where I spent several months in) with this link:

HMAS Melbourne (II - Royal Australian Navy)