Could Australia build a cheap carrier?

[Gaenth]

Oh! OK, no I probably didn't understand you correctly but I got you now. I think Harrier being the only proven and effective STOVL fighter out there would then get upgraded and production extended. I'ts actually a cost-effective alternative that has been given serious consideration even before JSF, and as I commented before, Spain, Italy and India have more hopes on Harrier than on JSF, their strike capability isn't something they'd let go, not as long as the Harrier is still alive.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Oh! OK, no I probably didn't understand you correctly but I got you now. I think Harrier being the only proven and effective STOVL fighter out there would then get upgraded and production extended. I'ts actually a cost-effective alternative that has been given serious consideration even before JSF, and as I commented before, Spain, Italy and India have more hopes on Harrier than on JSF, their strike capability isn't something they'd let go, not as long as the Harrier is still alive.

it is interesting though. Of the countries operating harriers now, India is going conventional with the Mig-29K, the UK has a similar option as they are not going to be restricted by the size of their future carriers. Which leaves Spain and Italy and I guess the USMC (although they do have CVNs for support). Not a large pool to fund upgrades and new aircraft I would have thought. I guess South Korea and Australia may be interested in the future as well.

 

[Gaenth]

Originally Posted by Whiskyjack
it is interesting though. Of the countries operating harriers now, India is going conventional with the Mig-29K, the UK has a similar option as they are not going to be restricted by the size of their future carriers. Which leaves Spain and Italy and I guess the USMC (although they do have CVNs for support). Not a large pool to fund upgrades and new aircraft I would have thought. I guess South Korea and Australia may be interested in the future as well.

I concurr, there's not a large pool to fund upgrades now and even less with JSF on the horizon, that's the thing. Only if JSF was discarded the operating countries would have the money and look into extendidng the Harrier's life, something simmilar to what happended with Comanche, when it was dropped the funds were re-directed to strengthen the US Army attack-helicopter fleet. If JSF was dropped then funding for Harrier Upgrades and new airframes would become available.

In the case of Australia and South Korea as well, the money they would have used to acquire F-35s could be used in Harriers with a little spare to kick start carrier programmes or maybe not in harriers at all but in longer range attack aircraft like F-15Es and smart weapons, which could be considered more valuable than a naval air strike capability.

In regards of India, they're looking into other options, not just aircraft but carriers as well because they have to. Their Harrier I fleet isn't getting any newer, it won't get any easier to maintain it, and US has always had a lot to say on selling Harrier IIs to them. So the future of their air strike capability depends more on the future of JSF than the other nations.

 

[alexsa]

it is interesting though. Of the countries operating harriers now, India is going conventional with the Mig-29K, the UK has a similar option as they are not going to be restricted by the size of their future carriers. Which leaves Spain and Italy and I guess the USMC (although they do have CVNs for support). Not a large pool to fund upgrades and new aircraft I would have thought. I guess South Korea and Australia may be interested in the future as well.

Don't forget Thailand (albeit they have the ship but no currently servicable aircraft). South Korea and Japan are also builing vessels that could, at a pinch, operate VSTOL aircraft. France has a vessel that could easilly be configured to operate VSTOL aircraft, but do not do so. Australia looks like going the same way. Some reports indicate that even the USAF is looking at the F-3B and I doubt the USMC will give them up noting the cash being spent on new LPAs.


This suggests there ramains a market for a VSTOL aircraft. It is also worth noting the RAF (ignoring the CVF issue) have been a large Harrier operator and don't seem inclined to cease using VSTOL aircraft. I understand they are considering further upgrates to the GR9.

If the F-35B gets axed it could all get very interesting.

 

[Sea Dog]

France has a vessel that could easilly be configured to operate VSTOL aircraft, but do not do so.

France has CTOL capability, and in any day of the week a CTOL will always outperform a VSTOL in lift/range. The luxury of having such a large plataform with high-performance CTOL a/c is one that only two nations currently can afford today (USN & F).

Now if France ever manages to get its RAFALE fleet up to snuff in the avionics end.......<sigh!>:bum

 

[alexsa]

France has CTOL capability, and in any day of the week a CTOL will always outperform a VSTOL in lift/range. The luxury of having such a large plataform with high-performance CTOL a/c is one that only two nations currently can afford today (USN & F).

Now if France ever manages to get its RAFALE fleet up to snuff in the avionics end.......<sigh!>:bum

I don't disagree in respect of CTOL but you have taken me somewhat out of context as i was not suggesting France wouel be a customer for VSTOL aircraft.

I would be interested to see how Rafale would compare to the F-35B when (or if) it is manufactured. Depending on who you listen it is quite probable the Rafale would be outclassed in many aspects.

 

[aprasadi]

Guys I dont think the word cheap really suits any aircraft carrier. As we can look the Indians got Gorshkov free from russian, its only paying for its refit and a squadron of MIG-29k. This alone goes to 1.5 billion$. So when its comes to building a small or large carrier it cant be cheap.
We have to consider all the costs as :
1] cost for building a carrier
2] cost for its aircrafts atleast one squadron plus helicopters.
3] cost for radars,sensors
4] cost for airdefence and other ammos
5] The most important maintainence cost

Looking at all thses aspects a modern carrier with modern fleet for aircraft considering JSF will cost around 4-5 billion$ roughly. also the cost will escalate if its not completed in time.
So we must stop thinking of ever building a cheap carrier.

 

[Wooki]

After much debate in other forums as to what the formation of RAAF long range strike should be, and what the future of the RAN should be, I thought it might be interesting to throw another option up in the air and raise the question as to whether the RAN should, would or could aquire an aircraft carrier. With two new LHDs to enter service in six or seven years time, and the probable purchase of the JSF with the possibility of some of these airframes being of the F-35B versions, an opportunity exists to capitalise on these aquisitions. Some suggestions have been made that if the F-35B version is purchased, the ability to embark a small number of these (6-10) on the new LHDs would offer RAN an amazing capability to project air power and force over larger distances. But this does raise the problem of both RAAF and Army fighting over limited space on these ships. One possibility or scenario would be to build a carrier that is entirely dedicated to an aircraft carrier capability, housing an entire squadron of F-35B, AWAC helos and additional supporting helos. With a design on two new LHDs to be selected in the not too distant future, would it be feasible to build a third of these platforms without the need to transport troops and their equipment, with a smaller well-dock to deliver UUV, USV manned SV etc, but fitted out entirely for JSF operations? At a cost of approx. $1B each for the LHDs, would it be incorrect to assume that it should cost around the same amount for a carrier? We are about to spend $2B on new C-17 aircraft, this would have bought us two carriers.

I think Australia (and others) would be better served building a "UAV carrier" for want of a better word. Which amounts to a large destroyer with organic AWACs and other sensor carrying UAVs to multiply the effectiveness of Aegis and the missile systems that use it.

It is not a biggy to cassette stow and launch multiple UAVs and I noticed that BAE (and BAE Australia as a matter of fact) have taken large steps recently in technologies that would allow you to do the above.

It certainly makes a lot of sense for a sea platform to be able to launch a forward spotter UAV before firing off a salvo from its AGS.

The platform to do it? Why an Austal trimaran of course!! :hul

Too funny

 

[Sea Toby]

Australia can barely afford to purchase and operate two LHDs, why do you want to purchase one similar vessel as a light carrier? One isn't enough, as the British know and the French have been recently reminded, you need two to operate around the clock. Can Australia afford two light carriers should be the question, not one.

Frankly, one of the reasons why the admirals didn't revolt back when the Melbourne was decommissioned was they knew one isn't enough too. There is a reason why the American navy likes to operate their carriers in twos when action is expected, the one flight deck crew can't go on forever without sleep.

 

[webmaster]

Please continue discussion here:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4722


Thread closed!