Well this post is nothing new. If you'd bothered to read the back history of this thread you wouldn't have to ask such questions that we've all discussed a few months ago.
A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?
- Thread starter t68
- Start date
- Status
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
True and I don't really believe there will be any issue with her, but RAN has been lax in this matter previously and given this purchase/lease etc is meant to replace a failed capability, if it actually proceeds we cannot take the slighest bit of risk that this vessel may fail too...
In terms of what would be best hypothetically, without real world considerations, sure no problem. 3 brand new Ronald Reagan type nuclear powered aircraft carriers, with 9 squadrons of Super Hornets, Growlers and F-35C's to fly off them, a fleet of new E-2D Advanced Hawkeye AEW&C to provide aerial surveillance, a fleet of zero lifed S-3's to provide tanking, anti-submarine, anti-surface warfare, overland surveillance and utility flights, a fleet of MH-60R's to provide anti-submarine and close anti-surface warfare and a fleet of MH-60S to provide Vertrep, boardings and utilty missions and 6 extra AWD's to provide a strong escort capability.
That would be a powerful carrier and surface navy for Australia and would be the second most powerful carrier battlegroups behnd the USN on the planet. No problem. But hypothetcally I guess we could even do better. Why not 6 or 9 Reagan type aircraft carriers, introduce 90 odd AWD's, develop separate fleets of SSG and SSN submarines equipped with conventionally armed ballistic missiles and have the strongest navy in the world!
Why not seeing as though we are only speaking hypothetically anyway? If people find this too ridiculous, please remember this is all hypothetical and if we are to switch back to realism for a moment, then none of this is any more likely than half a dozen RAAF F-35B's flying off the LHD's, so why bother to limit yourselves?
To suspend hypotheticallity for moment what would it cost for the RAN to acquire a bare minimum carrier capability?
The RAN is currently committing to spend around $2-2.5 billion for missiles to achieve a maritime strike capability (SEA 4000/4 and SEA 5000/3) and maritime extended range air defence (SEA 1360/1). This will provide a very limited capability for maritime strike and extended range air defence with single use only. Noteworthy is this is about 30-50% of the money needed to buy 24 F-35Bs, their weapons, crew and to fly them from 2025-2035 (which is the timeframe for the missile programs). A squadron of 12 F-35Bs afloat in a simple light carrier would provide far more maritime strike and extended range air defence capability than these missile programs.
To acquire said single carrier (20,000 tonnes), F-35B air wing (24 plus weapons), an AEW capability (~6 Fire Scout or A160) and a carrier supporting AOR and operate all of it for 10 years would cost around $10-12 billion. Minus the now un-needed missile expenditure that is $8-10 billion in the 2020-2035 timeframe.
The RAN is currently committing to spend around $2-2.5 billion for missiles to achieve a maritime strike capability (SEA 4000/4 and SEA 5000/3) and maritime extended range air defence (SEA 1360/1). This will provide a very limited capability for maritime strike and extended range air defence with single use only. Noteworthy is this is about 30-50% of the money needed to buy 24 F-35Bs, their weapons, crew and to fly them from 2025-2035 (which is the timeframe for the missile programs). A squadron of 12 F-35Bs afloat in a simple light carrier would provide far more maritime strike and extended range air defence capability than these missile programs.
To acquire said single carrier (20,000 tonnes), F-35B air wing (24 plus weapons), an AEW capability (~6 Fire Scout or A160) and a carrier supporting AOR and operate all of it for 10 years would cost around $10-12 billion. Minus the now un-needed missile expenditure that is $8-10 billion in the 2020-2035 timeframe.
So currently what sort of options for a carrier do we have given that? Another Canberra perhaps, rotating the role around the three ships? So we will always have an LHD and an Aircraft carrier, or at the times when only 1 is available with only 12 JSF the Carrier could also go as a temporary amphibious assault ship as a secondary duty
The Italian Cavour?
The thing with the Canberra idea is that, we wouldn't need to buy two ships to have one always operational.
Or alternatively we could wait for Spain's next carrier to replace the Principe de Asturias see how that goes.
Or consider (the expensive option) building two medium sized carriers (about the size of the Charles de Gaulle) capable of carrying 24 aircraft (the hornets.. there goes aircraft costs) and doing what the Brits are going to do with the Queen Elizabeth carriers, having one in dock with the other running on active duty so we always get one going.
While you could promote the idea of it replacing the missile deterant, it would be more complementary so you would most likely keep some of the missiles if not all of them. Certainly a value argument could be made.
I would imagine it is entirely doable given the right set of circumstances. But the argument then goes if you could squeeze a little more then you could get a carrier big enough to operate SH/F35C off.
I still think the Dozen or two F-35B buy is the most likely (which is not likely at all). I think the biggest gain is really sig/intel/visual gathering, and you can do this with out putting squads of aircraft in the air all the time. While UAV's will fill this niche, sometimes you need people actually out there to do something and sometimes respond. Sometimes an RC plane does not send the message you want to send.
You have some strike capability, you also get some A2A capability (certainly enough for our immediate region).
It would also offer greater ability to train with aircraft in blue water operations, also training and becomming familiar with handling aircraft with allied partners.
While the LHD won't be a full carrier, you could certainly conduct training operations of her. The purchase of a light (cavour plus style) carrier would also bolster Oz's amphibious capability to actually be able to conduct the mission we want (although a 3rd LHD would be better in that argument). Ideally you would have both.
Maxium Realistic RAN hypothetical:
1x Dedicated carrier with amphibious capability with 24 -30(~18-24 on ship) F-35B
3x LHD (2 ordered, 3 ship (prob LPD) promised)
5x AWD (3 ordered, 1 vaugely mentioned)
8x Anzac II
12x Subs
20x OCV
2x AOR
Out of this you could create two groupings, an amphib or carrier group. You would have enough escorts to back this up (2 AWD for each group, with Anzacs fleshing it out with some spare) or you could even lighten up one (supposing its operating with the other group) and create an additional surface action group (1 Awd 2 Anzacs) while still supporting the two amphib or 1 amphib/1 carrier group.
While only having one carrier, the 3rd LHD could fill in for her when needed (as purely a carrier) an basically make the situation workable. Its role could be shared by any of the LHD making entirely flexable. It would only be doing this in severe crisis that could not be planed for ahead of time. While a carrier it would be a poor choice, but with 3 x LHD operational the load could be somewhat shared (between 75,000t-90,000t of ships). (combined fuel loads, deck space, hanger space, helos etc)
You could conduct a full amphibious assault entirely self supported (just). You could conduct simulantous amphibious landings, or consectuative landings and support them near indefinately. The ADF could do pretty much and thing the USN could do just on a smaller less contested scale. We could operate east and west fleets. While there would have to be some flexability in the fleet make up, there is huge capability.
The problems come when you water this plan down. 4 AWD instead of 5 means your going to be short on lynch pin escorts. You lose that 3 grouping capability (not too bad) and you can still escort everything else. say a US ship being intergrated into your group things would again be looking up, but if you stay at 3 AWD seems completely unlikely as you proberly can't even train for that level of warefare nor sustain it. 2 LHD means you really don't have enough to fall back on when your carrier is out. Less than 24 F-35B means you can't really field enough aircraft. No carrier means you can't really do anything except training.
Look at the spanish armada
1 x carrier
1 x LHD
2 x LPD
5 x Destroyers (4 here 1 on order)
6 x Frigates
4 x Subs (4 new ordered)
21 x patrol craft
2 x AOR and a fleet oiler
Looks some what simular to my hypothetical. They have 2 LPD + LHD compared to my 3 LHD, still very simular. We could make 2 X LHD + 1 LPD work, but it would be less flexable and less capable particularly with aircraft. We could do this, spain already does this a country of comparible wealth and population sitting in safe protective europe. They still have a credible missile defence as well.
I would imagine it is entirely doable given the right set of circumstances. But the argument then goes if you could squeeze a little more then you could get a carrier big enough to operate SH/F35C off.
I still think the Dozen or two F-35B buy is the most likely (which is not likely at all). I think the biggest gain is really sig/intel/visual gathering, and you can do this with out putting squads of aircraft in the air all the time. While UAV's will fill this niche, sometimes you need people actually out there to do something and sometimes respond. Sometimes an RC plane does not send the message you want to send.
You have some strike capability, you also get some A2A capability (certainly enough for our immediate region).
It would also offer greater ability to train with aircraft in blue water operations, also training and becomming familiar with handling aircraft with allied partners.
While the LHD won't be a full carrier, you could certainly conduct training operations of her. The purchase of a light (cavour plus style) carrier would also bolster Oz's amphibious capability to actually be able to conduct the mission we want (although a 3rd LHD would be better in that argument). Ideally you would have both.
Maxium Realistic RAN hypothetical:
1x Dedicated carrier with amphibious capability with 24 -30(~18-24 on ship) F-35B
3x LHD (2 ordered, 3 ship (prob LPD) promised)
5x AWD (3 ordered, 1 vaugely mentioned)
8x Anzac II
12x Subs
20x OCV
2x AOR
Out of this you could create two groupings, an amphib or carrier group. You would have enough escorts to back this up (2 AWD for each group, with Anzacs fleshing it out with some spare) or you could even lighten up one (supposing its operating with the other group) and create an additional surface action group (1 Awd 2 Anzacs) while still supporting the two amphib or 1 amphib/1 carrier group.
While only having one carrier, the 3rd LHD could fill in for her when needed (as purely a carrier) an basically make the situation workable. Its role could be shared by any of the LHD making entirely flexable. It would only be doing this in severe crisis that could not be planed for ahead of time. While a carrier it would be a poor choice, but with 3 x LHD operational the load could be somewhat shared (between 75,000t-90,000t of ships). (combined fuel loads, deck space, hanger space, helos etc)
You could conduct a full amphibious assault entirely self supported (just). You could conduct simulantous amphibious landings, or consectuative landings and support them near indefinately. The ADF could do pretty much and thing the USN could do just on a smaller less contested scale. We could operate east and west fleets. While there would have to be some flexability in the fleet make up, there is huge capability.
The problems come when you water this plan down. 4 AWD instead of 5 means your going to be short on lynch pin escorts. You lose that 3 grouping capability (not too bad) and you can still escort everything else. say a US ship being intergrated into your group things would again be looking up, but if you stay at 3 AWD seems completely unlikely as you proberly can't even train for that level of warefare nor sustain it. 2 LHD means you really don't have enough to fall back on when your carrier is out. Less than 24 F-35B means you can't really field enough aircraft. No carrier means you can't really do anything except training.
Look at the spanish armada
1 x carrier
1 x LHD
2 x LPD
5 x Destroyers (4 here 1 on order)
6 x Frigates
4 x Subs (4 new ordered)
21 x patrol craft
2 x AOR and a fleet oiler
Looks some what simular to my hypothetical. They have 2 LPD + LHD compared to my 3 LHD, still very simular. We could make 2 X LHD + 1 LPD work, but it would be less flexable and less capable particularly with aircraft. We could do this, spain already does this a country of comparible wealth and population sitting in safe protective europe. They still have a credible missile defence as well.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Spain has a different operating environment, if you think the furthermost point Spanish waters even 200 mile limit from a Armada base then compare that to Australia's further most point from a Naval base that is domestic operations alone.
As such I like your list however, and its an interesting comparison I would add 2x AOR/Oilers making it a total of 4 available for fleet use.
A combined deployment of Carrier, LHA plus escorts would easily need 2 size for a sustained deployment even if it was one with fleet one doing replenishment runs, plus one for local deployments leaving one for maintenance work up etc.
Absolutely not. As I and others have stated and backed with data and operational analysis the Canberra class does not make a good carrier. It has the capability to operate a carrier air wing as a training ship for a Navy with a single carrier when that carrier is not available (like the Spanish Navy). Also two LHDs are required to deploy our amphibious task group and cutting into this is robbing peter to pay paul.
As I stated above the acquisition of a single carrier would provide a managed capability. Since that is what the RAN has with the amphibious task group then it is clearly the availability level that Government is happy with. If the RAN was to move to an assured level of availability then that would mean with the current fleet an additional LHD (for three) and an additional AO/AOR (for three). It would mean two carriers and two carrier AORs (or just a fourth if the Success and Sirius replacement can do the carrier AOR mission) to sustain a carrier task group.
The Cavour is designed for a mixed carrier/amphibious role and would not be ideal. There would be little problem acquiring the right type of carrier from Navantia, the US or even South Korea.
Well a strike carrier is a different option as I mentioned above and I was just providing a snap shot look at a light carrier to provide the minimum level of capability. If you want to complicate things with unrealistic armchair admiralling then wait until this discussion is finished and then go fish.
There would still be the submarine maritime strike (which is a separate program) which is the real deterrence capability. If you had a carrier in your RAN task group with F-35Bs able to launch JASSM there is no reason to consume valuable VLS cells with TLAM or similar.
With a managed carrier/amphibious capability the RAN surface fleet circa 2020-30s would consist of:
1 CVL (new program)
2 LHD
1 LSD
3 AOR (+1 new program)
3 AWD (SEA 4000)
8 FFH (Anzac and SEA 5000)
Which would be able to deploy in time of crisis with limited sustainment (several months only)
1 Strike Task Group:
1 CVL, 1 AWD, 2 FFH
1 Amphibious Task Group:
2 LHD, 1 LSD, 1 AWD, 2 FFH
To provide a constantly available and sustainable level of similar capability would require:
2 CVL
3 LHD
2 LSD
4 AOR
3 AWD
8 FFH
Moving forward when the Canberra's are operational I would like to see Aus sign a three powers defence agreement with the other two maritime heavy-hitters in the region - Korea & Japan. A combined Japan/Aus/Korean fleet would be a very formidable foe, with or without a CVL.The addition of the Japanese/Korean Akizuki, Kongō & Sejongdaewang Destoyers and new Japanese Hyuga Class helicopter destroyer (light carrier) would add some serious firepower. It's a shame the latter doesn't come complete with ski jump, at 13k tonne's it should be able to at least lilly pad 35B's.
If NZ wants to play they should invest in a simplified Hyuga class (no VLS), at 13k tonne it's about the right size and could host a small contingent of rotary lift (4 - 6) to support limited operations as part of a wider ANZAC force.
the Japanese are getting a larger "Destroyer" at 248m and 24000 tonnes full load, it shold be able to handle F-35B
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19000t_class_destroyer"]19000t class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:HIJMS_Chikuma.jpg" class="image"><img alt="Stub icon" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/HIJMS_Chikuma.jpg/40px-HIJMS_Chikuma.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/9/9b/HIJMS_Chikuma.jpg/40px-HIJMS_Chikuma.jpg[/ame]
if the kiwis were to join in, maybe one of those 190m LHDs?
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19000t_class_destroyer"]19000t class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:HIJMS_Chikuma.jpg" class="image"><img alt="Stub icon" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/HIJMS_Chikuma.jpg/40px-HIJMS_Chikuma.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/9/9b/HIJMS_Chikuma.jpg/40px-HIJMS_Chikuma.jpg[/ame]
if the kiwis were to join in, maybe one of those 190m LHDs?
i was reffering to the Canberra's cousin from navantia.
190m
21000 tonnes
bit big?
P.S, tried to get link but navantia's site doesnt seem to be working
I have read that the F35B has less capability than the Harrier when "lilly padding" so performance wise no real advantage would be obtained. The RAN would be better served using the Canberra and F35B option. However this idea should not be discounted completely if used in another context. If we take riksavage's idea to it's next logical step I do think that it would be worth looking at the feasibility of fitting a ski ramp to a Hyuga class vessel. Noting that the extra weight topside will bring the center of gravity higher getting rid of the VLS could help compensate for this which leads into to the comments below.
I agree that a Hyuga class sans VLS would do as suggested but the NZ politicians, & especially the bean counters, would argue that HMNZS Canterbury does the same in that it is designed to operate 5 NH 90's. I note there are at present issues with the NH 90 being able to operate at sea aboard Canterbury in sea states greater than 2. There are also crewing issues which the RNZN has similar to the RAN so that would have to be addressed.
However, with both governments agreeing that a joint ANZAC Defence task force is to be formed to address security and disaster relief issues within the South Pacific, assets will need to be assigned to this Force and hopefully ring fenced. As I have mentioned Kiwi politicians would not countenance purchase of a Hyuga class vessel for the RNZN because they do not see a need. Until the RAN has it's 2 replacement LHD's operational it will be dependent upon the Canterbury for fill the LHD role. That is a deficiency that needs to be addressed both for the RAN and the ANZAC Joint Force. Even when the 2 LHD's are operational, it could be argued that along with Canterbury 3 vessels in the South Pacific are not enough allowing for deployments, training & maintenance down time etc.
My solution would be for a joint ANZAC buy of a Hyuga class ( or similar if Japan can't export) sans VLS but outfitted with a ski ramp, permanently assigned to the ANZAC Joint Force,nominally operated by the the RNZN out of Auckland, but utilised and crewed by both navies. By it being permanently assigned to the Joint Force it will be ring fenced, so any changes in political direction cannot have it deleted from the service like the RNZAF ACF was in 2000.
Last edited:
i found the link i was missing before, it actualy looks like a pretty nifty ship
Productos de Navantia
Productos de Navantia
Ahhh, the JC1's little bro, I noticed (I got on to the english version, they classify it as the LHD and the JC1/Canberra as Sea Projection Ship. Even though we call the Canberra a LHD.) Much like the Thai Navy's aircraft carrier, which is a smaller version of the Spanish one.
I like the idea of an Anzac joint helicopter carrier/amphibious ship but we would need more than one (not to mention the cost of buying 1-2 ships that would only be used in disaster and Aus-NZ joint ops say another East Timor.. which doesn't happen often) and I'd say it would be a lot easier to just pick a ship in either of the counties' inventories that is available and use that, bringing over the other country's navy crew as a training experience/work alongside the normal crew freeing up manpower. Much like what they are doing now with the Canterbury
Blas de Lezo
Member
Both products are LHD´s, the one you mentioned was the daddy, the original one. The Armada then started to ask for more capability ( we were only going to get one) and it all ended as the BPE or LHD JCI.
The Armada never thought of JCI as a PDA replacement, at the time... nineties ( if my memory doesn't fail me ) Navantia ( Bazan, Izar) was designing a family of pure carriers. It was the SAC family SAC-200,SAC-220 and SAC-245, displacements from 20000t to 35000t.
Without a visible and credible v/stol alternative to AV-8, the STOBAR and to a lesser extent CATOBAR where the only alternatives so ....the SAC family appeared. Then the F35 came on the scene and.....the rest is history.
Blas de Lezo
Member
About 1500KM from Cadiz ROTA to Canary Islands
Last edited by a moderator:
Hyuga isn't an LPH or anything like it. She's a fast (>30 knots) ASW helicopter carrier with an advanced & expensive sensor suite. At least 18000 tons full load, & can carry 11 helicopters in its hangar. But no troop accommodation or other facilities for amphibious operations.
You could leave off the VLS, the torpedo tubes, the ASROC & the expensive command suite, & fit cheaper sensors, but she'd still not be a cheap ship - and anyway, Japan doesn't export warships.
JC1 is listed as both an LHD & a carrier/sea protection ship.
Japan can export what it likes, but chooses not to. That policy is hard to change.
What deal do you mean?
Spain 2009 - 46 million population, USD1460 bn at current prices USD 1495 bn at PPP.
Australia 2009 - 22 mn population, $925 bn at current prices, $858 bn at PPP.
Not the same level.
- Status