Does Australia need an aircraft carrier?

[Aussie Digger]

McPhedran said that Defence stressed that there was no "existing" plan to equip the ships to carry short take-off aircraft.

Australian Defence Magazine last month reported RAN has indicated it WILL keep the ski-lift on the Navantia vessel if it's chosen, at least this will give us a "latent" capability should we decide to go down the path of an "assault ship/light carrier" rather than just an amhibious transport.

Sea Toby, you seem to be forgetting that these ships will replace Tobruk and either Manoora or Kanimbla. The remaining LPA will then be replaced by a DEDICATED sea lift ship.

IF you follow the RAs operational and exercise plan each year you'd see that the LPA's and Tobruk are extremely busy and are rarely in port besides maintenance activities of course.

Why would RIMPAC be too far to go? We have assets at the one being conducted now and Kanimbla and Manoora have deployed to same in the past...

Edit: Manoora is at RIMPAC right NOW...

The feasibility of using an LHD to operate STOVL fighters is reasonable with the Navantia design, with limitations. However it is still a much better options than presently available to us and the ability to be flexible and "mix and match" the loads on such a vessel for a particular operation is what makes them so desirable. Why deliberately limit your options? Particularly when F-35B will still be useful in any number of land based scenario's...

 

[contedicavour]

Australian Defence Magazine last month reported RAN has indicated it WILL keep the ski-lift on the Navantia vessel if it's chosen, at least this will give us a "latent" capability should we decide to go down the path of an "assault ship/light carrier" rather than just an amhibious transport.

Sea Toby, you seem to be forgetting that these ships will replace Tobruk and either Manoora or Kanimbla. The remaining LPA will then be replaced by a DEDICATED sea lift ship.

IF you follow the RAs operational and exercise plan each year you'd see that the LPA's and Tobruk are extremely busy and are rarely in port besides maintenance activities of course.

Why would RIMPAC be too far to go? We have assets at the one being conducted now and Kanimbla and Manoora have deployed to same in the past...

The feasibility of using an LHD to operate STOVL fighters is reasonable with the Navantia design, with limitations. However it is still a much better options than presently available to us and the ability to be flexible and "mix and match" the loads on such a vessel for a particular operation is what makes them so desirable. Why deliberately limit your options? Particularly when F-35B will still be useful in any number of land based scenario's...

Agree. Even if Australia did not use F35s on its LHDs, it could still operate US Marines F35s in joint operations. Italy's Garibaldi operated for 5 years with British and American Harriers before legislation was amended and Harriers Plus at last could be bought for the Italian Navy.

cheers

 

[RubiconNZ]

Send in the Marines

Agree. Even if Australia did not use F35s on its LHDs, it could still operate US Marines F35s in joint operations.
cheers

True there seems to be a dillution of the Aus Governments insistence of no plans for US Bases in Australia, perhaps circumstances may change which would include the basing of US marine assets there. Marine assets would be be most likely and if not, at least preposistioned stocks, I think with current relations there would be no stretch in RAAF pilots doing all their intial STOVL training in the US, then continuing here. 15 aircraft should provide the necessary capability to provide for a 6 plane deployment and could easily be procured in the third? Tranche or in addition to... It would certainly allow Australia to further delay acquistion of well at this stage the Tomahawk CM. I think it would be a case of one or the other.

 

[Markus40]

Has anyone got any updates on whether the Australian government is leaning towards the spanish designed LPD or the Navantia? I understand that its both of these options now that are under consideration.

 

[knightrider4]

Lhd

The two options are either the French Mistral Class or the Spanish Strategic Projection Ship designed by Navantia.

 

[swerve]

Has anyone got any updates on whether the Australian government is leaning towards the spanish designed LPD or the Navantia? I understand that its both of these options now that are under consideration.

To add to what Knightrider said:

The Mistral is built by Armaris, of France. The Spanish ship is called the BPE (Buque de Proyección Estratégica ) in Spanish. The one building hasn't yet been named, though Aragon is being considered.

They're LHDs rather than LPDs, under US classifications.

Spanish Navy page on BPE - http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/Antecedentes.asp

Alabordache page on Bâtiment de Projection et de Commandement Mistral
http://www.alabordache.com/marine/espacemarine/marine/commandement/mistral/index.php

 

[Markus40]

Look good source sites but thats only if you can read french and spanish. Is there an english version of the URLs??

To add to what Knightrider said:

The Mistral is built by Armaris, of France. The Spanish ship is called the BPE (Buque de Proyección Estratégica ) in Spanish. The one building hasn't yet been named, though Aragon is being considered.

They're LHDs rather than LPDs, under US classifications.

Spanish Navy page on BPE - http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/Antecedentes.asp

Alabordache page on Bâtiment de Projection et de Commandement Mistral
http://www.alabordache.com/marine/espacemarine/marine/commandement/mistral/index.php

 

[swerve]

Look good source sites but thats only if you can read french and spanish. Is there an english version of the URLs??

Afraid not. The Spanish Navy translates as much of its site into English as the Royal Navy translates into Spanish, & the French site clearly follows the same policy.

 

[Markus40]

There was no english version either sites, so would be good to read them in english if possible.

Afraid not. The Spanish Navy translates as much of its site into English as the Royal Navy translates into Spanish, & the French site clearly follows the same policy.

 

[swerve]

There was no english version either sites, so would be good to read them in english if possible.

Well, I'm sure you can use Google as well as I can. Plenty of keywords on those sites you can pick up to use in searches. Good luck!

 

[Markus40]

I understand from the news last week that the Australian government has given the US military 3 new bases. 2 in Queensland and 1 in western Australia. All will have the capability to bring in US troops and support facilities and have stationed transport air craft. Whether they will be used for F35 training or transition bases for the US Navy and Australian Navy or Airforce is yet to be determined.

True there seems to be a dillution of the Aus Governments insistence of no plans for US Bases in Australia, perhaps circumstances may change which would include the basing of US marine assets there. Marine assets would be be most likely and if not, at least preposistioned stocks, I think with current relations there would be no stretch in RAAF pilots doing all their intial STOVL training in the US, then continuing here. 15 aircraft should provide the necessary capability to provide for a 6 plane deployment and could easily be procured in the third? Tranche or in addition to... It would certainly allow Australia to further delay acquistion of well at this stage the Tomahawk CM. I think it would be a case of one or the other.

 

[Markus40]

What are the "limitations" using the F35s on the Navantia class LHD, if its reported that its likely to retain a "skijump" ? Is the Navantia design a design for the F35 or not?

Australian Defence Magazine last month reported RAN has indicated it WILL keep the ski-lift on the Navantia vessel if it's chosen, at least this will give us a "latent" capability should we decide to go down the path of an "assault ship/light carrier" rather than just an amhibious transport.

Sea Toby, you seem to be forgetting that these ships will replace Tobruk and either Manoora or Kanimbla. The remaining LPA will then be replaced by a DEDICATED sea lift ship.

IF you follow the RAs operational and exercise plan each year you'd see that the LPA's and Tobruk are extremely busy and are rarely in port besides maintenance activities of course.

Why would RIMPAC be too far to go? We have assets at the one being conducted now and Kanimbla and Manoora have deployed to same in the past...

Edit: Manoora is at RIMPAC right NOW...

The feasibility of using an LHD to operate STOVL fighters is reasonable with the Navantia design, with limitations. However it is still a much better options than presently available to us and the ability to be flexible and "mix and match" the loads on such a vessel for a particular operation is what makes them so desirable. Why deliberately limit your options? Particularly when F-35B will still be useful in any number of land based scenario's...

 

[Markus40]

Helpful you are. In any case, it would seem from other sites that the Spanish design is a better one overall, despite it being bigger, but its going to take the Australian Navy and Military longer to make up its mind on this variant due to the longer commissioning time on the LPD.

Well, I'm sure you can use Google as well as I can. Plenty of keywords on those sites you can pick up to use in searches. Good luck!

 

[swerve]

What are the "limitations" using the F35s on the Navantia class LHD, if its reported that its likely to retain a "skijump" ? Is the Navantia design a design for the F35 or not?

The limitations are those it has compared to a dedicated aircraft carrier. It's primarily an amphibious ship, with a secondary aviation role. It has space & weight taken up by a dock & landing craft, so not available for aircraft, for example.

Helpful you are. In any case, it would seem from other sites that the Spanish design is a better one overall, despite it being bigger, but its going to take the Australian Navy and Military longer to make up its mind on this variant due to the longer commissioning time on the LPD.

Yes I am, & I have been. But I'm not going to do searching you can do for yourself. And I wouldn't expect anyone to do it for me.

What's the LPD you're talking about?

 

[Whiskyjack]

Does anyone know what form the third logistics ship is likely to take?

I ask as this may have a bearing on the discussion around how the LPH(s) may be configured for various ops.

E.g. the Bay class that the UK are commissioning have a 350 person lift (500 in overload) with an ability to carry a large amount of vehicles and stores. While not fitted I believe there is also a provision for a Helicopter hanger.

Something along these lines may enable the LPH to have a greater air group and carry the stores etc to support it.

 

[Markus40]

Is Australia settling for the 2 designs or have we got a third option ? I dont think i have heard that the Australian Navy looking at a LPH? Is there information on this?

Does anyone know what form the third logistics ship is likely to take?

I ask as this may have a bearing on the discussion around how the LPH(s) may be configured for various ops.

E.g. the Bay class that the UK are commissioning have a 350 person lift (500 in overload) with an ability to carry a large amount of vehicles and stores. While not fitted I believe there is also a provision for a Helicopter hanger.

Something along these lines may enable the LPH to have a greater air group and carry the stores etc to support it.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Is Australia settling for the 2 designs or have we got a third option ? I dont think i have heard that the Australian Navy looking at a LPH? Is there information on this?

Umm, they are looking for 2 x LPH/LHD, hence the Spanish and French designs, this has always been the intent. They are also looking for a third logistics ship to the best of my knowledge although there seems to be less info on this.

 

[cherry]

If the two new LHD are backed up by at least two HSV style catamarans, this would allow a bit more flexibility for RAN to operate a small number of F-35B Lightening from the LHD. It doesn't necessarily have too be a permanent thing, only when required.

 

[swerve]

Amphibious ship classes

There seems to be some confusion here over USN hull classifications. Note that they aren't used by other navies, which have their own systems (the MN does not call Mistral an LHD) for example), but since they are the most widely used & generally recognised, it makes sense to use them in discussions such as this. But that only works if we all understand them. So here goes with a quick & dirty guide to the relevant categories (there are a lot more, even for amphibious ships), & the characteristics which are generally taken to define them:

LPH - Landing Platform, Helicopter. Has a through deck, but no floodable dock, e.g. HMS Ocean.
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/ocean.htm

LHD - Amphibious Assault Ship - through deck and dock. This is the class of ship Australia is seeking, as all the official documentation states (see below).

And here are the contenders -
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2005/Aug/20050811a.cfm

LPD - Landing Platform, Dock or Amphibious Transport, Dock - helicopter landing deck. Usuall equipped to support aviation operations, may have a hangar - e.g. Johan de Witt or HMS Albion
http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/lpd.htm
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/albion.htm

LSD - Landing Ship, Dock - May have a helicopter landing deck, but no hangar - e.g. Bay-class
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/lsda.htm

 

[Markus40]

You can be helpful.! Thank you for that information.

There seems to be some confusion here over USN hull classifications. Note that they aren't used by other navies, which have their own systems (the MN does not call Mistral an LHD) for example), but since they are the most widely used & generally recognised, it makes sense to use them in discussions such as this. But that only works if we all understand them. So here goes with a quick & dirty guide to the relevant categories (there are a lot more, even for amphibious ships), & the characteristics which are generally taken to define them:

LPH - Landing Platform, Helicopter. Has a through deck, but no floodable dock, e.g. HMS Ocean.
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/ocean.htm

LHD - Amphibious Assault Ship - through deck and dock. This is the class of ship Australia is seeking, as all the official documentation states (see below).

And here are the contenders -
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2005/Aug/20050811a.cfm

LPD - Landing Platform, Dock or Amphibious Transport, Dock - helicopter landing deck. Usuall equipped to support aviation operations, may have a hangar - e.g. Johan de Witt or HMS Albion
http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/lpd.htm
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/albion.htm

LSD - Landing Ship, Dock - May have a helicopter landing deck, but no hangar - e.g. Bay-class
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/lsda.htm