Carriers for the RAN am I dreaming or ill look at one when i'm 50

[Rich]

A few points I'd like to make. There are 10 countries already operating carriers or LPDs. Were going to go ahead and call that 11 because China will have them, probably in the next 10 years or so. So wether or not Australia needs one or two clearly there are 11 other countries who feel they do need them.

So imagine a possible scenario of conflict with Indonesia. The origin of this conflict might come from Papua, terrorism, or some off shore oil field thats discovered. East Timor is another one. Or, the conflict might be over some other resource rich area of the region and might be between other countries, with Australia feeling they need to make a show of force. Either to prevent war or to support one side.

I will add that certainly any country that attacked Australia would also have the Yank navy landing on its head in short order. But think if such a scenario occurred while we were also occupied in NK or Taiwan?

Anyway, with one eye on history, I am throwing possible scenarios at you. You might say you might not "need" a dedicated LCV but one thing you cant say is "we couldn't use one". The mere presence of two LCVs might even have the effect of preventing war. Yank CVN groups have certainly been known to have a calming effect on crisis's when they show up.

 

[Tasman]

I agree, that with bare basing, an aircraft carrier isn't really needed for a Defence of Australia situation. Particularly in light of the amount of space available for a defence in depth, and the few nations capable of landing an invasion force given the distance.

However a carrier, or carrier-like vessel (again, back to the LHD) could be used for power projection or to protect Australian strategic interests that aren't under RAAF aircover. Again, not advocating the RAN add a carrier to the Fleet, but to have the option available with the upcoming LHDs.

-Cheers

It does now seem that the RAN would need to select the Spanish Navantia BPE design if it is to be in a position to operate F35Bs from its amphibious ships if circumstances call for this in the future.

The latest (Jan-Mar 2007) edition of 'The Navy', The Magazine of the Navy League of Australia, page 8, reports that the whilst 27 changes have been incorporated in the design of the French Mistral class to meet the RAN's requirements under JP2048, the development of an evolved variant has been ruled out. The report suggests that this rules out the Mistral class from being able to operate F35Bs, or even cross decking USMC aircraft of this type.

IMO this is reasonably sensible as the RAN would probably be reluctant to go with an untested design (i.e. an evolved version). If it wants the capacity to operate VSTOL aircraft as a future insurance policy it can go for the Spanish ship. If not it can go with the French vessel which would meet all the requirements laid down in JP2048.

Cheers

 

[rjmaz1]

Definitely no carrier is needed and we will never get one.

A carrier would ideally help provide close air support to the troops on the ground, however there are cheaper alternatives.

C-130 gunships have exceptional range and would be much cheaper to operate and provide greater firepower than a F-35B. This would be by far the better option.

A handfull of B-1b's would be exceptional. The US has a few in the boneyard and they can be purchased for less than what we will probably pay for a single JSF. So quite cheap for good power projection. The B-1b's cost heaps to operate, an entire squadron of F-35's would probably have lower running costs than a single B-1b aircraft. However the B-1b would still be much cheaper than an aircraft carrier so if we wanted power projection the B-1b would be better than an aircraft carrier.

The only problem is if Australia gets such a long reach it may cause an arms race in the region. So B-1b's and aircraft carriers will not be bought for this reason.

C-130 gunships however would be a good addition as most people think they are relative old and "low tech" when infact our neighbours should be very afraid of an aircraft like that.

I personally think that Australia's next purchase should be a fleet of common ships like the high speed Austral boats similat to the ones the US trialed. These are cheap, fast and require a crew of less than 10 people for commercial use. With a basic SAM setup, radar and a few guns the crew could be kept to similar levels of an armidale patrol boat but with capabilities reaching or exceeding the anzac frigates.

Then at war time these ships can carry 300 troops and heaps of equipment to the war zone. Once that equipment is offloaded it has alot of internal space to act as a F-35B refueler, helicopter landing pad, hospital etc etc.

If we want to be able to slaughter any potential opponent, the B-1b would be my choice. It could strike targets twice as far as our F-111's and carry three F-111's worth of bombs in one aircraft. Even say 5 B-1b aircraft would destroy any enemy who tried to attack Australia.

Every single ship would get sunk before it reached our coast. If some did land the M1A2 tanks would absolutely destroy any force in the open desert.

Australia is very very safe, early warning from satelites, wedgetails and UAV's will give us plenty of warning and for them to successfully get into Australia would require 10 times as much resources as what it would require for us to defend.

I dont see Indonesia getting a Navy or Air force 10 times as advanced as ours.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Definitely no carrier is needed and we will never get one.

A carrier would ideally help provide close air support to the troops on the ground, however there are cheaper alternatives.

C-130 gunships have exceptional range and would be much cheaper to operate and provide greater firepower than a F-35B. This would be by far the better option.

Don't do much for air defence of the fleet though when it's deployed far from land, which would be a primary role of the F-35B.

A handfull of B-1b's would be exceptional. The US has a few in the boneyard and they can be purchased for less than what we will probably pay for a single JSF. So quite cheap for good power projection. The B-1b's cost heaps to operate, an entire squadron of F-35's would probably have lower running costs than a single B-1b aircraft. However the B-1b would still be much cheaper than an aircraft carrier so if we wanted power projection the B-1b would be better than an aircraft carrier.

I doubt that very much. Further more maintaining them would probably cost more than an F-35 fleet anyway, from all reports. Again it doesn't nothing for fleet air defence. We are getting a platform capable of operating F-35's anyway (most likely). The ability to use a STOVL aircraft is inherent in the SPS design. The additional cost would only be for the aircraft (and related support etc) themselves.

The only problem is if Australia gets such a long reach it may cause an arms race in the region. So B-1b's and aircraft carriers will not be bought for this reason.

C-130 gunships however would be a good addition as most people think they are relative old and "low tech" when infact our neighbours should be very afraid of an aircraft like that.

See above.

I personally think that Australia's next purchase should be a fleet of common ships like the high speed Austral boats similat to the ones the US trialed. These are cheap, fast and require a crew of less than 10 people for commercial use. With a basic SAM setup, radar and a few guns the crew could be kept to similar levels of an armidale patrol boat but with capabilities reaching or exceeding the anzac frigates.

Then at war time these ships can carry 300 troops and heaps of equipment to the war zone. Once that equipment is offloaded it has alot of internal space to act as a F-35B refueler, helicopter landing pad, hospital etc etc.

I thought we weren't buying F-35B's?

If we want to be able to slaughter any potential opponent, the B-1b would be my choice. It could strike targets twice as far as our F-111's and carry three F-111's worth of bombs in one aircraft. Even say 5 B-1b aircraft would destroy any enemy who tried to attack Australia.

Every single ship would get sunk before it reached our coast. If some did land the M1A2 tanks would absolutely destroy any force in the open desert.

See above. Australia doesn't operate M1A2's and has no intention of ever operating them, due to it's policy on DU. What open desert?

Australia is very very safe, early warning from satelites, wedgetails and UAV's will give us plenty of warning and for them to successfully get into Australia would require 10 times as much resources as what it would require for us to defend.

I dont see Indonesia getting a Navy or Air force 10 times as advanced as ours.

Perhaps you should read up on Carlo Kopp's opinion then. Apparently we are doomed unless we listen to him. We are not buying enough AAR's, Wedgetails, satelites OR UAV's and we're not (as yet) buying the F-22.

 

[Todjaeger]

Definitely no carrier is needed and we will never get one.

A carrier would ideally help provide close air support to the troops on the ground, however there are cheaper alternatives.

Essentially what an aircraft carrier is, is a floating airfield. It doesn't provide CAS, Strike capability, or anything else, just forward basing of aviation assets. This is why others have argued, fairly accurately, that the RAAF bare basing scheme should work for Defence of Australia situations where RAAF aircraft need to be forward deployed. However, if a situation arises where Australia felt the need to forward deploy aircraft elsewhere, that is where (or when?) a carrier or carrier-like vessel can be of use.

C-130 gunships have exceptional range and would be much cheaper to operate and provide greater firepower than a F-35B. This would be by far the better option.

A handfull of B-1b's would be exceptional. The US has a few in the boneyard and they can be purchased for less than what we will probably pay for a single JSF. So quite cheap for good power projection. The B-1b's cost heaps to operate, an entire squadron of F-35's would probably have lower running costs than a single B-1b aircraft. However the B-1b would still be much cheaper than an aircraft carrier so if we wanted power projection the B-1b would be better than an aircraft carrier.

The only problem is if Australia gets such a long reach it may cause an arms race in the region. So B-1b's and aircraft carriers will not be bought for this reason.

C-130 gunships however would be a good addition as most people think they are relative old and "low tech" when infact our neighbours should be very afraid of an aircraft like that.

Okay, there is a sea of difference between power projection and CAS or strike capabilities. An AC-130 gunship does provide very good CAS, I'm not convinced though that it would be all that successful in destroying infrastructure like bridges, roads, building etc. Or for that matter, maritime strike. That is the sort of thing that bombs and missles are used for, not 30mm cannon fire, granted some versions have a 105mm mounted, the shell from that isn't as effective as a bomb. Not to mention the issues a AC-130 would have when operating in an unfriendly air environment.

A B1-B, assuming the RAAF could get them, can conduct long-range strategic strike missions. It is not suited to providing on call air support for deployed forces, nor is it particularly adept at dealing with mobile forces that might not be in the same positions or locations. For similar reasons, it doesn't do maritime strike well. Also, like the AC-130, a B-1B has no provision for air-to-air combat, which is a possible mission for ship based aircraft conducting a power projection operation.

I personally think that Australia's next purchase should be a fleet of common ships like the high speed Austral boats similat to the ones the US trialed. These are cheap, fast and require a crew of less than 10 people for commercial use. With a basic SAM setup, radar and a few guns the crew could be kept to similar levels of an armidale patrol boat but with capabilities reaching or exceeding the anzac frigates.

Then at war time these ships can carry 300 troops and heaps of equipment to the war zone. Once that equipment is offloaded it has alot of internal space to act as a F-35B refueler, helicopter landing pad, hospital etc etc.

See my question about this in the HSV thread. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=88427#post88427

If we want to be able to slaughter any potential opponent, the B-1b would be my choice. It could strike targets twice as far as our F-111's and carry three F-111's worth of bombs in one aircraft. Even say 5 B-1b aircraft would destroy any enemy who tried to attack Australia.

Every single ship would get sunk before it reached our coast. If some did land the M1A2 tanks would absolutely destroy any force in the open desert.

Australia is very very safe, early warning from satelites, wedgetails and UAV's will give us plenty of warning and for them to successfully get into Australia would require 10 times as much resources as what it would require for us to defend.

I dont see Indonesia getting a Navy or Air force 10 times as advanced as ours.

A carrier, or LHD with aircraft, allow other options besides carrying out strikes, etc. It can also be used to provide air cover/defence against hostile aircraft, as well as lift assistance to deployed forces (a la helicopter carriers). The question becomes one that is more, 1. How important is this to Australia, and 2. How much would this cost. There is little question in my mind that if Australia had the capability, it would be used. The question that is as yet unanswered, is will the RAN get the capability.

-Cheers

 

[Rich]

We aren't going to sell any B1bs and the assembly line is long closed. Even with the numbers we have, and the budget we have, we have found it impossible to maintain a 75% operational rate on our B1bs and the ones that are actually operational are living in a much smaller Yank manned bomber force, which means none are for sale. Even if they were, even if we gave our friends down under some, the operational and maintenance costs of keeping these bloody things flying would leave you cursing them.

They are one dimensional anyways, as has already been mentioned. C-130 Spectres are mostly night birds cause in the day they are big slow targets for AA weapons. They are always targets for enemy fast movers.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I dont think you can really compare strategic strike assets (B1B) and cas (AC130) assets to a carrier. There all intended for compleatly different roles in compleatly different enviroments. A light carrier would give us true indipendant blue water capability, coupled with the LHD's we could land substantial heavy ground forces anywhere in the world in the face of hostile air, 5 B1B's or AC 130's are not going to give us that capability. A carrier will not be intended for a defence of Australia situation, the aircraft would be better employed (more payload and heaps less cost) from land baces.

 

[contedicavour]

It does now seem that the RAN would need to select the Spanish Navantia BPE design if it is to be in a position to operate F35Bs from its amphibious ships if circumstances call for this in the future.

The latest (Jan-Mar 2007) edition of 'The Navy', The Magazine of the Navy League of Australia, page 8, reports that the whilst 27 changes have been incorporated in the design of the French Mistral class to meet the RAN's requirements under JP2048, the development of an evolved variant has been ruled out. The report suggests that this rules out the Mistral class from being able to operate F35Bs, or even cross decking USMC aircraft of this type.

IMO this is reasonably sensible as the RAN would probably be reluctant to go with an untested design (i.e. an evolved version). If it wants the capacity to operate VSTOL aircraft as a future insurance policy it can go for the Spanish ship. If not it can go with the French vessel which would meet all the requirements laid down in JP2048.

Cheers

Very interesting. So it appears that the choice of the ship will already make it clear whether the RAN will have F35Bs or not...
The Mistrals are clearly not built with STOVL operations in mind as the French Navy has never been interested in it. The "pros" in STOVL are Italy and Spain (and the UK but with the QE class they are going back into "major league" CTOL).
The Navantia Juan Carlos type is great for secondary STOVL operations but IMO it has an insufficient speed and radar/electronics suite to be used by the Australians as an auxiliary carrier for overseas missions. At least, that's what Gladius and other Spanish sources say : the LHD remains a LHD, while the Asturias remains the only real dedicated carrier in Spanish service.
It will be veeery interesting to see who wins.
I'd go for an upgraded Juan Carlos with more powerful engines for a speed > than 20kn and with a radar/electronics suite closer to that of Cavour.

cheers

 

[alexsa]

If we want to be able to slaughter any potential opponent, the B-1b would be my choice. It could strike targets twice as far as our F-111's and carry three F-111's worth of bombs in one aircraft. Even say 5 B-1b aircraft would destroy any enemy who tried to attack Australia.

.

Hmmm ... sort of ignores the scenario where the fleet is deployed away from the coast of Australia for any reason. Any assesst be it an F-35A , f-22, B-1B or AC-130 will take time to responde if it has to fly from a base, whats more there is the range issue.

So a call for air support means waiting and hoping or the good forture to be able to plan quite a few hours ahead (after we have to get the tankers airbourne as well).

If we ever have the funds and we build the LHD's a number of F-35B's would be a useful asset for force projection and and fleet defence.

 

[jnbooth]

... There is no threat, and until there is a significant threat, Australia does not need an aircraft carrier.

Security 101. Rule 1.

"The biggest threat to security is the belief that there is no threat".

P.S. My first post, hello all. What a fantastic forum, really intelligent people and conversation.

 

[Tasman]

Security 101. Rule 1.

"The biggest threat to security is the belief that there is no threat".

Welcome jnbooth. You make a good point and one we should all remember.

Australia seems to me to have moved away from the 'no threat for ten years' philosophy that seemed to be the guide for defence planners in previous decades. The need to suddenly provide forces for GW1 and 2, East Timor, etc, does appear to have forced the government to look more critically at potential dangers. The build up of the RAN's amphibious capability and the RAAF's heavy transport fleet together with the expansion and 'hardening' of the army are examples. However, the reality is that no country can spend unlimited amounts on defence and, short of conscription, which, IMO would be political suicide in Australia unless invasion was imminent; there are limits to the number of personnel who can be recruited and trained.

I personally think more should be spent on defence but as I have said in earlier posts I would see a carrier as being well down the list. As a first step a lot of us have argued for the large amphibs to be given VSTOL capability which would enable them to provide air cover for embarked troops (from RAAF F35Bs and Tiger helos) and, if circumstances required to serve in a 'sea control' role (F35Bs and Seahawk helos). I would love to see a light carrier (preferably 2) with a dedicated air group added to the RAN down the track, but not until other shortcomings in the ADF have been addressed.

Cheers

 

[jnbooth]

Agreed. Whilst it is important to consider all threats, the threats should be prioritised into what is “likely” and ...well....not so. This puts a Carrier well down the list in order of ADF priorities based on likely threats.
Considering the fact that the ADF budget is likely to be stretched in the coming decade in allowing for retention and recruitment issues, it is unlikely a carrier would be on any planner’s agenda.
I am also of the opinion that the cost of acquiring a carrier would only be the tip of the iceberg. A carrier alone makes for a juicy target. The current make up of the fleet is far to sparse to support a carriers force projection role and the acquisition of a carrier alone would make it more of a hindrance, as it would need too much protection. This would have too much of a ‘centralising’ effect on the entire RAN fleet.
The idea of V/STOL on large amphibs seems more ideal to the ADF’s force structure and seems also to be quite popular.

 

[Tasman]

I am also of the opinion that the cost of acquiring a carrier would only be the tip of the iceberg. A carrier alone makes for a juicy target. The current make up of the fleet is far to sparse to support a carriers force projection role and the acquisition of a carrier alone would make it more of a hindrance, as it would need too much protection. This would have too much of a ‘centralising’ effect on the entire RAN fleet.

Agreed.

If we look at what was required to support the former light carrier Melbourne, it is likely that at least 4 surface combat ships (say 2 AWDs and 2 FFHs), and a replenishment ship would be tied up to work with the carrier group. To maintain an airgroup of, say, 12-16 F35Bs, 4-6 Seahawks and 2/3 AEW helos, the navy would need at least double this number in its inventory. And that does not include additional aircraft for training. Even if the F35s were operated by the RAAF the rule of thumb, based on previous experience, seems to be that at least 2 aircraft are needed for every 1 embarked. To provide, maintain and support a force of this size would be a huge undertaking for a navy the size of the RAN (both in terms of cost and numbers of personnel) and that is for just one carrier of modest size. If we accept that two carriers are required to make a viable force then it is way beyond what Australia is likely to be able to afford in the forseeable future.

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

Agreed.

If we look at what was required to support the former light carrier Melbourne, it is likely that at least 4 surface combat ships (say 2 AWDs and 2 FFHs), and a replenishment ship would be tied up to work with the carrier group. To maintain an airgroup of, say, 12-16 F35Bs, 4-6 Seahawks and 2/3 AEW helos, the navy would need at least double this number in its inventory. And that does not include additional aircraft for training. Even if the F35s were operated by the RAAF the rule of thumb, based on previous experience, seems to be that at least 2 aircraft are needed for every 1 embarked. To provide, maintain and support a force of this size would be a huge undertaking for a navy the size of the RAN (both in terms of cost and numbers of personnel) and that is for just one carrier of modest size. If we accept that two carriers are required to make a viable force then it is way beyond what Australia is likely to be able to afford in the forseeable future.

Cheers

I think youare overstating it but even if we agree with your escort requirements then you would need that if you were escorting on of the LPH's or other amphibous support assests in any case. The disadvange being you don't have the airwing capability of the LHD.

In regards to aircarft and previous experiance we are looking a different level of technolgy compared to the Grumman Tracker, Seaking, Wessex and A-4's carried on the HMAS Melbourne. If we got F-35B's they would part of a large JSF wing which would resolve a number of the training and support issues. (with the A-4 Skyhawk it was necessary to maintain a number of 2 seat trainers just of proficiency training).

Finally lets face it we escroted the HMAS Melbourne wiht less capable asest than we have now but in similar numbers. We also now have better underway supprot than the old supply whihc was it in those days.

The LHD will be a very capable ship for the RAN and it is nice to think it may be possible that one day we may see JSF flying from them.

 

[Tasman]

In regards to aircarft and previous experiance we are looking a different level of technolgy compared to the Grumman Tracker, Seaking, Wessex and A-4's carried on the HMAS Melbourne. If we got F-35B's they would part of a large JSF wing which would resolve a number of the training and support issues. (with the A-4 Skyhawk it was necessary to maintain a number of 2 seat trainers just of proficiency training).

Yes you make a good point here but I still think that maintaining aircraft at sea is more demanding than operating them from land bases. Perhaps though, with the new generation of aircraft the 2:1 ratio may be somewhat more than is necessary. It would be interesting to see how many SHs the USN need for each deployed squadron. If the RAAF provided the F35Bs there would be economy of scale and I suspect that this is probably what would happen. It would also be one way of avoiding the resentment that the RAAF felt towards the old fixed wing FAA and result in better co-operation!

The LHD will be a very capable ship for the RAN and it is nice to think it may be possible that one day we may see JSF flying from them.

Couldn't agree more!

Cheers

 

[jnbooth]

I think youare overstating it but even if we agree with your escort requirements then you would need that if you were escorting on of the LPH's or other amphibous support assests in any case. The disadvange being you don't have the airwing capability of the LHD.

I dont think that an LHD is as much of a liability as an Aircraft carrier in terms of protecting it. It doesnt carry the same prestige and therefore makes it less of a target, IMHO.
Furthermore, the RAN would value a LHD for its other roles (including humanitaran such as the 2005 Tsunami), which I guess is back to the point of whether the RAN requires carriers or not.

 

[rickshaw]

Interesting statistic which is relevent to this discussion:

When the RN deployed a small carrier to Sierra Leone, it required ~1,000 men to support a squadron of Harriers.

When the RAF deployed a squadron of Jaguars, it required ~250 men.

Which was a more economic return on the investment of the exchequer?

 

[contedicavour]

Interesting statistic which is relevent to this discussion:

When the RN deployed a small carrier to Sierra Leone, it required ~1,000 men to support a squadron of Harriers.

When the RAF deployed a squadron of Jaguars, it required ~250 men.

Which was a more economic return on the investment of the exchequer?

True, but how can you be sure you'll have an airbase ready in the theatre of operations ? In order to secure a perimeter around an airbase, you'd have to bring in several troops... and you would still be vulnerable to SAMs hitting jets taking off from the airbase.
Your carrier out there in the sea is much less threatened as today's rogue states or guerrillas lack the assets to threaten a naval task force (even a small one centred around a LHD or a STOVL CV).

cheers

 

[alexsa]

I dont think that an LHD is as much of a liability as an Aircraft carrier in terms of protecting it. It doesnt carry the same prestige and therefore makes it less of a target, IMHO.
Furthermore, the RAN would value a LHD for its other roles (including humanitaran such as the 2005 Tsunami), which I guess is back to the point of whether the RAN requires carriers or not.

I don't see prestige as an isuse. If we ever got to a combat situation a LHD with troops and aircarft would still be a high value target (and an attactive one for that matter) and would require the same escort as a light carrier in the same situation.

 

[Mick73]

Can anyone name an ADF operation that hasn't been achieved successfully? I can't.

I can...
Op Lagoon -Bougainville 1994

A boat with planes would of would of been helpful...getting stuck on the ground for 1.5 hours with limited ammo and zero fire support and with a platton minus surround by trigger happy BRA rebels and PNGDF...a few extra aircraft would of made things...how would you say...less bloody hairy!

Having a LPH capable if needed to carry a small flight of F-35B's would a nice if the situation required it. We could do what the UK did and call them "Through deck cruisers" if it makes the bean counters happy. Finally it would give us what we missed out on in the early 80's. Just with the RAN has the boats and the RAAF has the planes. Joint projects are what the ADF needs to into for better future. What the RAN is going to turn its nose up at having ARH's fly from its decks or have a RAAF Fly Away Surgical Team (FAST) operate from its decks. We could have a good capablities if this hat badge B/S stops and we work together for the good of the ADF. One day we might not have this money flying around...what then? I say give us 20 F-35B's (8 for each ship plus spares). If they don't fly from the LPH's, They certainly be uses on the oil rigs, main roads, footy ovals or Xmas island/Coccos Island...a bloody unsinkable carrier they are!