Carriers for the RAN am I dreaming or ill look at one when i'm 50
- Thread starter lobbie111
- Start date
- Status
There have been a few treads worked over in regards to this issue. My personal view is that the closest you will see to it is the LHD's. Given our forces structure these are probably the best option for us.
Have a look at the amphibous ships and air power thread currently running. There were also some pretty comprehensive disucssions about 12 months ago.
Have a look at the amphibous ships and air power thread currently running. There were also some pretty comprehensive disucssions about 12 months ago.
PETER671BT
New Member
Far as I know two LHD are in consideration which are french and spainsh,the mistral and navantia/tenix.Both designes are capable,but I perfer the spanish just because it can carry more troops.AS for a carrier ADF was looking at least four different countries such as italy,france,uk,spain.But choose LHD,S instead.
Much as I would love to see the rebirth of fixed wing aviation in the RAN I just can't see it happening in the next ten years at least. The reality is that the government faces difficulties in funding its existing re equipment priorities and also has a huge problem with recruiting and retaining personnel.
I believe that the best case scenario at the moment will be to ensure that the present program goes ahead without distractions. The current Defence Capability Plan indicates that this should provide a combat force in approx 10 years time of:
2 x LHD (Navantia or Mistral type)
3 x AWD (Gibbs and Cox or F101 type)
8 x FFH (Anzac class)
6 x SSK (Collins class)
14 x PB (Armidale class)
6 x MCM (Huon class)
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/dcp.cfm
If a surge capability is needed I believe that the two newest of the FFGs could possibly be kept on for a few more years (but that is supposition on my part).
As I have said in other threads I would like to see a small number of F35Bs included in an Australian purchase of the JSF to give the LHDs the capacity to embark fixed wing aircraft for close support of troops and limited air defence and strike. I believe this is achievable (providing the F35B is built!).
I would also like to see a fourth AWD constructed.
Once the above force is securely in place I believe that Australia could then consider a carrier force if expansion is warranted and the budget is available. Ships along the lines of the new Italian Cavour class look ideal. I have always argued that a minimum of two carriers is needed to make a viable force but the presence of the LHDs would mean that one of these could supplement a lone carrier when required. If such a program was to be authorised we would be looking well beyond 2020 to see it in place. A decision to take this path would all depend on what threats Australia may face in the future.
Cheers
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The FFG-UP Adelaide class frigates seem likely to be retained until the "frigate replacement project" kicks off once the AWD build phase is completed.
HMAS Sydney is not yet operational, and may not be for some time to come thanks to ADI's "great" work, this more than anything else I suspect is the reason the FFG's will be operated until 2018-2020. The need to get some value for money out of this...
contedicavour
New Member
I remember the extensive explanations by Gladius on the difference between a LHD and a STOVL CV from the Spanish Navy's point of view.
Up to the Australian government to decide what is a priority : amphibious operations requiring air support, or task force operations centred on a carrier.
Anyway a small squadron of F35Bs on 200+ metre long LHDs is already an excellent power projection tool.
cheers
Up to the Australian government to decide what is a priority : amphibious operations requiring air support, or task force operations centred on a carrier.
Anyway a small squadron of F35Bs on 200+ metre long LHDs is already an excellent power projection tool.
cheers
As far as a true carrier is concerned, Australia can barely afford one, she'll need at least two and possibly a third to maintain full time operations. I would rather have two LHDs than one CVL. And as noted before, sea lift is more important than a true carrier presently.
There is a logical reason why the nations that operate carriers want at least two. They may only have one, but they want two.
There is a logical reason why the nations that operate carriers want at least two. They may only have one, but they want two.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I agree. I cannot see circumstances changing to the point where an Australian Government seriously contemplates acquiring a proper "Carrier" for RAN. For starters we don't operate the escorts needed to protect one and tt would take a major shift in policy as well as a significant funding boost to acquire even a squadron sized group of F-35B's to operate from the LHD's.
A proper "carrier" seems all but impossible for RAN to seriously contemplate...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I quite agree. Further, I'm not sure that I would like to see the RAN with a dedicated carrier... As I see it, there are only three reasons that Australia would re-introduce a dedicated aircraft carrier. Either there is an increase in the threats Australia faces, needing the addition of a carrier and other forces, and an increase in threats is not a good thing. Or, there is rising militarism in Australia, which tends to not work in a free society. Lastly, it is something purchased to show off with, as opposed to actually use, which would just be a waste of money the gov't could do better things with.
As has been mentioned in other threads, fixed-wing operations from an LHD might be a possibility, with caveats. Assuming the F-35B, or some other STOVL aircraft becomes available...
The RAN might consider changing the requirement from 2 to 3 (or 4) LHD. An increase in the number of LHD might be considered more favorably if production is carried out in Australia and/or Australia acquires the design rights to the RAN version of LHD.
By having more LHD (I'd still have Tobruk replaced by at least 1 HSV) then the RAN would be able to deploy 1 LHD acting as a troop/lift ship, escorted by an LHD acting as a carrier. At the same time, a third LHD can be undergoing maintenance or conducting a separate mission. Or if the missions require, then all LHD can be conducting troop carrying or humanitarian missions.
Given the small size of the ADF overall, and the RAN, I don't see a dedicated carrier happening anytime soon. But the introduction of multi-role vessels flexible enough to perform as a carrier would be a worthwhile assets, assuming it can be done reasonably efficiently.
-Cheers
Australia has regularly needed the ability to land ground forces into troubled/failed Pacific island nations. This seems to be the biggest security concern of Australia, probably for the next 10-20 years.
These troubled/failed Pacific island nations have little in terms of fighter aircraft, warships or heavy armour. So no fixed wing carrier is needed at this time. There's literally nothing for a fixed wing carrier's aircraft to strike against!
The proposed LHD amphibious ships would appear to be outstanding platforms to meet these requirements.
Combined with their medical facilities, this type of ship is also useful to assist (in a non threatening way) with natural disasters, which unfortunately hit this area with equal regularity.
Like the other respondents, I see no need for Australia to have a fixed wing carrier...
These troubled/failed Pacific island nations have little in terms of fighter aircraft, warships or heavy armour. So no fixed wing carrier is needed at this time. There's literally nothing for a fixed wing carrier's aircraft to strike against!
The proposed LHD amphibious ships would appear to be outstanding platforms to meet these requirements.
Combined with their medical facilities, this type of ship is also useful to assist (in a non threatening way) with natural disasters, which unfortunately hit this area with equal regularity.
Like the other respondents, I see no need for Australia to have a fixed wing carrier...
Agreed.
Armed helicopters can provide all the air support necessary for Australian ground troops in the likely scenarios.
Will Australias Tigers train for operating off the LHDs?
I can think of a thousand scenarios where such a CV would be useful. The biggest of which is a Falklands type scenario. Yes I know such a thing could never happen, but, didn't the Brits also think that about the Malvinas and Argentina? I can remember thinking a war in the Mideast against Saddam would never happen, or , nobody would ever fly airplanes into buildings. The simple fact is The Pacific is still the Pacific and Australia is still a major regional power with important regional interests/security requirements.
And its not like Australia has no history with CVs. You have even sent them to war in the past. Of course, such a war could never happen again.
Yaknow theres a reason I read so much History all the time.See the contradiction? How can you do above safely and effectively without local air cover? Sure you can send land based air if the op is close enough. But there is no substitute for CV based air operating closely to the land op. That's why we built and float 25 of the things. So if the need for your second quote is there, then so is the need for the CV.
But I agree with you that the window for the new Aussie carriers was open back in the 80's when you retired the light carriers you had at the time. I remember quite a talk about it back then, but if Cold War realities couldn't get them built then todays realities couldn't.
Pity really. Australia's CVs had a short but accomplished life.
Although I've long been an enthusiastic supporter for fixed wing aviation in the RAN I have to concede that Australia could not justify the need for an aircraft carrier now or in the forseeable future. Even with massive increases in spending I think there are many other defence priorities that would keep a carrier on the back burner.
In particular I see a need to support the expansion and hardening of the army and providing it (including reserve units) with the best possible equipment. The timely re equipment of the air combat force is another must. In the case of the navy I think the present program is heading in the right direction.
The navy has been heavily involved in the support of the army in intervention and peacekeeping activities in recent years and the amphibious force has consistently proven to be invaluable. The advent of the 2 LHDs and the follow on sealift vessel that is projected will enable this force to perform even better in the years ahead. In the short term I am happy with the operation of helicopters only from these vessels but down the track I would love to see some F35Bs available (probably operated by the RAAF) to operate from them when necessary. I think these may prove particularly useful for operations to Australia's North West. The AWDs and the submarine force are also needed for operations in this area as well as being available to work with allied forces further afield. Any extra funds the navy may be able to squeeze out I would like to see go to a fourth AWD and an increase in the SSK force to 8.
Regretfully I don't believe my generation will see another carrier in the RAN.
Cheers
For a Falklands-type scenario to occur requires Falklands-type circumstances, i.e. a detached territory, with someone capable of grabbing it you can't overpower locally without carriers, but can defeat with carriers. Australia isn't in that situation, any more than, e.g., Switzerland is.
As has already been said, the LHDs can provide all the air cover needed to intervene in the Pacific islands. There are no combat aircraft or air defences in any of them. Attack helicopters are overkill for most circumstances, & perfectly adequate for the most extreme that might be envisaged.
contedicavour
New Member
I guess what could come closest to the Falklands situation would be an intervention like the one in Timor, but a bit farther away (ie outside the range of land-based F18s or F111s). Though of course I don't see Australia ending up in a shooting war with Indonesia or any of her large Asian neighbors. Though who knows what can happen in 30 years time (military coups, revolutions, extremists taking power, separatist movements...:shudder )
cheers
Intervention against who? All the Pacific islands that Australia might intervene in lack any kind of air cover, or air defences. Except for Fiji & Papua New Guinea, they have either no armed forces, or such small ones that Australia could walk in. Even Fiji & PNG have no ability to put up more than token resistance to an Australian landing.
Apart from that, we're talking about invasions of Indonesia. That won't happen. The only scenarios I can imagine are interventions in a collapsing, or already collapsed, Indonesia. They'd be multinational, with land bases available from the neighbours, & probably owners of carriers helping out.
Without Indonesian opposition, E. Timor could have been done with no fixed-wing air cover. With Indonesian opposition, Australia wouldn't have done it, carriers or not.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
You can never say never. There are some active destabilising influences in indonesia, not to mention some serious seperatist movements in Irian Jaya and Ache. Things can change pretty quickly in a nation as large, diverse and if i may say as poor as indonesia. So a situation like timor, in ache for example would be outside practical range of fighter cover.
i'm not saying this justifies a full time CVL by any means, but a fixed wing capability for the LHD's would be invaluable in such a situation. I think we're looking for a roll on roll off style platform and new LST's so we should be able to sealift a heavy/mechanised brigade anywere in the world should the need arive with decent airlift and gunship support. And i'm sure we could use even limited fixed wing CAS and to some extent Air superiority. So i think the mistral just limits our options too much.
i'm not saying this justifies a full time CVL by any means, but a fixed wing capability for the LHD's would be invaluable in such a situation. I think we're looking for a roll on roll off style platform and new LST's so we should be able to sealift a heavy/mechanised brigade anywere in the world should the need arive with decent airlift and gunship support. And i'm sure we could use even limited fixed wing CAS and to some extent Air superiority. So i think the mistral just limits our options too much.
Last edited:
First off Australia has her treaty obligations. Secondly you have already lost many citizens in the GWOT and its not beyond the impossible that a regional country becomes a open terror supporting state that's hostile to Australia. But the biggest reason is that the future of this world is going to be one big crunch for resources. AND Australia has, and is in a region, that is going to become very important for resource hungry powers. Most of all China! Two examples I would use would be New Guinea and New Caledonia.
I know, I know, none of this is possible. History is full of wars that nobody thought was possible. Your analogy with Switzerland is irrelevant. To begin with, you have treaty obligations, then your country is heavily dependant on maritime commerce, has a huge coastline, and is in a region of the world that has a lot of potential for conflict.
Australia has nothing in common with Switzerland.
You hope. In ending I would ask all of you to compare the world today with the one 20 to 30 years ago and ask yourself, "who forecasted it"? The future holds no end to possible scenarios with the only absolute fact is that, without question, there will be another war. There is always another war around the corner and the only real defense against it starting is the maintenance of military strength.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
How many Sout Pacific Nations operate ANY air force at all? Very few.I can think of a thousand scenarios where such a CV would be useful. The biggest of which is a Falklands type scenario. Yes I know such a thing could never happen, but, didn't the Brits also think that about the Malvinas and Argentina? I can remember thinking a war in the Mideast against Saddam would never happen, or , nobody would ever fly airplanes into buildings. The simple fact is The Pacific is still the Pacific and Australia is still a major regional power with important regional interests/security requirements.
And its not like Australia has no history with CVs. You have even sent them to war in the past. Of course, such a war could never happen again.
See the contradiction? How can you do above safely and effectively without local air cover? Sure you can send land based air if the op is close enough. But there is no substitute for CV based air operating closely to the land op. That's why we built and float 25 of the things. So if the need for your second quote is there, then so is the need for the CV.
But I agree with you that the window for the new Aussie carriers was open back in the 80's when you retired the light carriers you had at the time. I remember quite a talk about it back then, but if Cold War realities couldn't get them built then todays realities couldn't.
Pity really. Australia's CVs had a short but accomplished life.
How many operate any offensive air force? 1 (Australia).
I agree a Carrier or 2 for RAN would be lovely, however it's hardly justifiable in the current threat environment and with the current level of funding Government is prepared to devote to ADF.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute studied this and other "funding options" for ADF and estimated that our budget would have to expand from around $16b a year to $25b a year in current year dollars to afford the capability.
This doesn't address the personnel issues involved either. RAN is in a perilous state of manning at present and is not far off "tying ships up at docks" for lack of personnel.
It could even man 2 "light carriers" at present, let alone anything more substantial...
- Status