Does Australia need an aircraft carrier?

[knightrider4]

Seasprite

The principle difference between the two helo's is that the SH-2G (A) is fitted with the ITAS system (intergrated tactical avionics system) developed by Litton guidance and control. This system intergrates both tactical flight info and that collected by the various sensors into a coherant picture thus easing crew workload. It is this system which is causing the dramas. Sorry sister rang post got submitted late.

 

[Magoo]

There is a evaluation of sorts in defence today mag of the "persistant third player" this refers to the USS San Antonio built buy Northrop Grumman Ship Systems(NGSS). There are 12 LPD17 ships being built at present, some will contain melted down parts of the World trade centre in the their structure. NGSS is keeping the ADF informed of its progress and although it is not able to launch 6 helos at the same rate as the armaris and navantina, it is able to deliever at a fast and effective rate. Northrop Grumman also claims to be able to come well under the price tag of the other contenders and provide a better defensive capability to the spanish and french as it is more designed for the military market. The LPD17 is the dark horse of the bid, and has little chance over its rivals, with both being shortlisted, but that won't stop Northrop trying, but it would be good to buy Euro for a change.

The Navatina model shown this year at a confrence was displayed with VTOL aircraft, although ADF is stating that this is not a requirment, still, handy if they change their mind to have it available to convert in a hurry.

Something else re the LPD-17 class that hasn't been raised much in the press, is that it has been designed so it can be fitted with an Aegis combat system and VLS deck, and can therefore be self-escorting. The manning requirement however, are huge (~600+), so such an option would be considered outside at best.

Magoo

 

[swerve]

I'm extremely skeptical of their claims to be cheaper, since AFAIK the USN is paying a lot more for its LPD-17s than either France or Spain is paying for their LHDs. And what do they mean by "more designed for the military market"? Both the others are designed purely for the military market, being designed to the specifications of the French & Spanish navies.

There is a evaluation of sorts in defence today mag of the "persistant third player" this refers to the USS San Antonio built buy Northrop Grumman Ship Systems(NGSS). There are 12 LPD17 ships being built at present, some will contain melted down parts of the World trade centre in the their structure. NGSS is keeping the ADF informed of its progress and although it is not able to launch 6 helos at the same rate as the armaris and navantina, it is able to deliever at a fast and effective rate. Northrop Grumman also claims to be able to come well under the price tag of the other contenders and provide a better defensive capability to the spanish and french as it is more designed for the military market.

 

[icelord]

I'm extremely skeptical of their claims to be cheaper, since AFAIK the USN is paying a lot more for its LPD-17s than either France or Spain is paying for their LHDs. And what do they mean by "more designed for the military market"? Both the others are designed purely for the military market, being designed to the specifications of the French & Spanish navies.

I'm going off the article for the bit about military market, to quote " LPD17 is built to military specification unlike the mistral and SPS LHDs, and also has a low profile, stealth design. I can only assume that the ships are designed with a civilian transition in mind, or is based on a civilian model.
Also mentioned is the USN requirment that the ship is to last 30+ years. Example stated, "by replacing highly expensive titanium piping wih conventional components" Northrop says 2 LPD17s could be built with the Australian industry for less then $2 Billion. a requirement of the ADF is that each ship must cost less then $1 billion. The number of crew needed as stated by magoo being 600+ would be to much for the navy to be able to recruit in time for delievery, and it has a big enough skills shortage as it is.

 

[alexsa]

I presume you mean the proposed AEW EH101 for the Royal Navy*, since Italy already has EH101 AEW in service. However, they aren't the same. Different radar from that now used by the RN, & different from any proposed for future RN use. Mounted under the fuselage, like the standard search radar of maritime EH101s, but much bigger.


*upgraded its AEW Sea Kings a few years ago with new radars, airframes overhauled, etc., to extend their lives, so new AEW not needed for a while.

Absolutely correct, I meant the RN Merlin option. Sorry I did not make that clearer.

In respect of the subsequent disccuons in respect of using other platrorms for AEW I doubt a F-35B in it anticpated role could provide the desired capability compared to a dedicated platform. If I am wrong the USN will do away with E-2 and/or subsequent systems. Somehow I doubt this will happen.

 

[contedicavour]

Absolutely correct, I meant the RN Merlin option. Sorry I did not make that clearer.

In respect of the subsequent disccuons in respect of using other platrorms for AEW I doubt a F-35B in it anticpated role could provide the desired capability compared to a dedicated platform. If I am wrong the USN will do away with E-2 and/or subsequent systems. Somehow I doubt this will happen.

What are the main differences between the radar systems aboard EH-101AEW (Italian version) and the latest updates on the RN Sea Kings AEW ?

cheers

 

[swerve]

I'm going off the article for the bit about military market, to quote " LPD17 is built to military specification unlike the mistral and SPS LHDs, and also has a low profile, stealth design. I can only assume that the ships are designed with a civilian transition in mind, or is based on a civilian model.
Also mentioned is the USN requirment that the ship is to last 30+ years. Example stated, "by replacing highly expensive titanium piping wih conventional components" Northrop says 2 LPD17s could be built with the Australian industry for less then $2 Billion. a requirement of the ADF is that each ship must cost less then $1 billion. The number of crew needed as stated by magoo being 600+ would be to much for the navy to be able to recruit in time for delievery, and it has a big enough skills shortage as it is.

Ah. I see the confusion. The LPD-17 is built to USN standards, not to a civilian classification standard. The others, though pure military designs (they are not based on civilian models), are built to commercial shipping standards in some respects, as are recent UK amphibious ships. I'm a bit hazy on this, but there's some information here -

http://www.rina.org.uk/rfiles/warship/Article0306.pdf
http://www.lr.org/NR/rdonlyres/4B6E069C-8379-4303-B700-FEBCE2993F3A/40262/Selection1.pdf

The Albion-class ships are built to commercial standards but with military damage control standards. I'm not sure exactly what standards the Aussie contenders are built to. The French LHDs meet a commercial classification society standard, but it seems to be one adapted for naval vessels. They're producing warship standards nowadays - the FREMM frigates will be built to one (a commercial warship standard?).

The commercial classification process guarantees a certain construction standard, certified by an independent body, which isn't the case for navies own rules, so navies are mostly going over to using it now.

Looks to me as if the price depends on them being built in Australia more cheaply than US yards can do it, & to adopting something more like commercial standards.

[edit]
This could be particularly relevant -
http://www.amsa.gov.au/Natship_2004/proceedings/JohnDikkenberg.pdf

 

[Aussie Digger]

Current funding completes the development of an upgrade to the current AN/SPY-1D radar, Engineering Development Model 4B (EDM-4B), to enhance its capability against low cross section sea skimming targets in increasingly more severe electronic countermeasures and in near-land clutter environments. The changes are in the transmitter, signal processor, and radar control computer program. for the ARLEIGH BURKE (DDG 51) class ships Two new efforts will start in FY 1999. First, support for a Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) Program which is developing a common, backfittable theater-wide radar upgrade signal processor to provide affordable theater-wide exoatmospheric discrimination capability. Second, integration of the AN/SPQ-9B radar into the AEGIS Weapon System to improve capability against the advanced low-altitude threat.

I think with the advancement of the Spy1 system that the system will have BTH capabilities, shortly.

I never said it has NO capability to detect sea skimming missiles. It (and other radars) certainly do. It's simply at far shorter ranges than 200 miles, hence the development of quick firing short ranged weapon systems like Phalanx. The available reaction time if no "off-board" targetting capability is present, is apparently VERY short even for subsonic missiles...

As to F-35B, I don't have great confidence we WILL get them, but there is a possibility as Defmin HILL was the last person to actually discuss the option of getting the F-35B and he refused to rule it out. Nothing else has been said officially on the subject since then, other than RAN will most likely keep the ski-jump on the Navantia SPS design if it's chosen, giving further credence to the idea...

As to the San Antonio's, I saw the article in Defence Today and I'll just say I've seen that bunch make quite a few "definite" claims in the past about things that "will" happen. Turns out they were wrong, but no public apologies were ever written...

Abe Gubler (formerly of Defence Today) also wrote a series of articles on where the Australian Army was going wrong with it's M1A1 Abrams purchase by not including things like an infantry phone etc. Well turns out Army had ordered nearly all the things he suggests far before he wrote those articles. Guess not everyone in Defence is a complete goose and doesn't know their job eh?

If the San Antonio's are chosen for RAN I'll publicly eat my hat, but I feel quite confident in stating that they haven't got a "snowballs chance in hell"...

 

[Pusser01]

Different software Markus. The two aircraft are so different as to be, well, pretty much different aircraft. NZ went the lower-end, lower risk route, whereas the RAN went the high-end, high risk route. The fact that NZ's SSs have been in service for what, four years now, speaks volumes!

I can't see Seasprite being operated off the LHDs anyway - it's combat system will be linked into that of the Anzacs, much the same as the Seahawk and the FFGs' systems are linked.

Magoo

Actually, if the Seasprites ever get airborne, they will be able to link with any other unit that is link11 capable. You are right about the Seahawks being only able to communicate with the FFG's, they have what is known as the HDL (helo data link) basically a lower capability than link11.
Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

Since Australia is building two LHDs which can move a large number of troops, up to a thousand, I would think the third vessel would be more of a LSD instead of a LPD using American terminology, geared to move a large number of supplies and equipment rather than troops. So I suspect the third ship would appear more like the British Lars Bay class rather than a Dutch Rotterdam, even though both are derived from the Dutch Enforcer series.

A Merlin AEW helicopter would solve Australia's over the horizon shortfall, but why not develop a NH90, SeaSprite, or Seahawk version? It didn't take the British a long time to develop the Sea King version during the Falklands War. Since amphibious ships usually don't deploy unless there is air superiority, there is no need for a carrier born AEW capability unless Australia uses the LHDs as light carriers and acquires the F-35B. Keep in mind its currently the RAAF's duty to provide air superiority, not the RAN's.

Answering a question further back in this thread: Yes, the RAN has been sending its former Newports to RIMPAC, an American organized exercise, as amphibious vessels, not as light carriers. I do wonder whether RIMPAC would be too far away if one of their LHDs was needed in an emergency as a logistic ship when its being used as a light carrier at RIMPAC. However, on further thought, I have to remind myself Australia will have two LHDs, and would still have one nearby anyway.

 

[Gladius]

Some comments.

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?

As swerve said, the limitations in the design of Navantia are mainly the derived of the commitment of capacities of an amphibious assault ship (a LHD on this case) with a secondary STOVL aviation role, against the aviaton capacity of a dedicate STOVL aircraft carrier without or with a minimal amphibious capacity.

About your second question, the answer is yes. The Navantia's SPS/BPE is capable of operating the F-35B and the AV-8B+ as well. This was one of the requests of the Spanish Navy during its design, given its interest on an alternative platform to PdA (R-11 Príncipe de Asturias) for sustained operations with Harrier and its future succesor. This was the main reason for the reject of the firsts designs of the Navantia's SPS/BPE that didn't have sky-jump neither were capable to operate with STOVL planes (with reasonable payloads) or the Osprey Tilt-Rotor. On it's max. air operation configuration the Navantia's ship have a capacity for ~35 STOVL aircrafts and helos.

I'm extremely skeptical of their claims to be cheaper, since AFAIK the USN is paying a lot more for its LPD-17s than either France or Spain is paying for their LHDs.

Oh yes, yes. The Armaris Mistral, and Navantia's SPS/BPE both are less expensive than the LPD-17. The SPS will cost to Spanish Navy 360 mill € (~455 mill US$), the two smaller Mistrals for the French Navy cost to France around 600 mill € (~760 mill US$). But the ninth LPD-17 proyected cost (As said FY2006 budget) will be over 1,6 Billion* US$.

Also mentioned is the USN requirment that the ship is to last 30+ years. Example stated, "by replacing highly expensive titanium piping wih conventional components" Northrop says 2 LPD17s could be built with the Australian industry for less then $2 Billion. a requirement of the ADF is that each ship must cost less then $1 billion. The number of crew needed as stated by magoo being 600+ would be to much for the navy to be able to recruit in time for delievery, and it has a big enough skills shortage as it is.

Well, it would have to be many cuts and not only about the titanium, to cut more than 500 mill $ (almost 1/3 of the LPD-17 cost), in each ship, so comply with the budgetary limit of the Australian program would be very complicated. A lot more if we keep in mind the investment and cost of a foreseeable local construction of equipment and/or part/totality of the ships. We don't forget that the contenders are not the European shipyards by their own, but teams of Australian and European shipyards: Navantia-Tenix and Armaris-ADI.

A Merlin AEW helicopter would solve Australia's over the horizon shortfall, but why not develop a NH90, SeaSprite, or Seahawk version? It didn't take the British a long time to develop the Sea King version during the Falklands War. Since amphibious ships usually don't deploy unless there is air superiority, there is no need for a carrier born AEW capability unless Australia uses the LHDs as light carriers and acquires the F-35B. Keep in mind its currently the RAAF's duty to provide air superiority, not the RAN's.

IMO, if Australia decides to acquire an helo for AEW tasks, the logical thing will be opt for an AEW variant the NH-90, already planed to be developed for the Spanish Navy. Introduce a new logistic chain for the Merlin only for a few AEW helos??? With the recenly purchase of the MRH-90s, I don't think so.

Edit: *corrected typo error

 

[Markus40]

I would still have to agree that i think the Australian government would be leaning towards deploying the F35s on a LHD/LPD as its integral overall strategy for forward air defence at sea. Its hard to believe that the Australian government would deploy by forward means just assault helicopters and Helos for forward operations. There has to be some logic to multi tasking operational purpose for the RAN. Especially in the Pacific and Asia regions.

Some comments.



As swerve said, the limitations in the design of Navantia are mainly the derived of the commitment of capacities of an amphibious assault ship (a LHD on this case) with a secondary STOVL aviation role, against the aviaton capacity of a dedicate STOVL aircraft carrier without or with a minimal amphibious capacity.

About your second question, the answer is yes. The Navantia's SPS/BPE is capable of operating the F-35B and the AV-8B+ as well. This was one of the requests of the Spanish Navy during its design, given its interest on an alternative platform to PdA (R-11 Príncipe de Asturias) for sustained operations with Harrier and its future succesor. This was the main reason for the reject of the firsts designs of the Navantia's SPS/BPE that didn't have sky-jump neither were capable to operate with STOVL planes (with reasonable payloads) or the Osprey Tilt-Rotor. On it's max. air operation configuration the Navantia's ship have a capacity for ~35 STOVL aircrafts and helos.



Oh yes, yes. The Armaris Mistral, and Navantia's SPS/BPE both are less expensive than the LPD-17. The SPS will cost to Spanish Navy 360 mill € (~455 mill US$), the two smaller Mistrals for the French Navy cost to France around 600 mill € (~760 mill US$). But the ninth LPD-17 proyected cost (As said FY2006 budget) will be over 1,6 million US$.



Well, it would have to be many cuts and not only about the titanium, to cut more than 500 mill $ (almost 1/3 of the LPD-17 cost), in each ship, so comply with the budgetary limit of the Australian program would be very complicated. A lot more if we keep in mind the investment and cost of a foreseeable local construction of equipment and/or part/totality of the ships. We don't forget that the contenders are not the European shipyards by their own, but teams of Australian and European shipyards: Navantia-Tenix and Armaris-ADI.



IMO, if Australia decides to acquire an helo for AEW tasks, the logical thing will be opt for an AEW variant the NH-90, already planed to be developed for the Spanish Navy. Introduce a new logistic chain for the Merlin only for a few AEW helos??? With the recenly purchase of the MRH-90s, I don't think so.

 

[swerve]

IMO, if Australia decides to acquire an helo for AEW tasks, the logical thing will be opt for an AEW variant the NH-90, already planed to be developed for the Spanish Navy. Introduce a new logistic chain for the Merlin only for a few AEW helos??? With the recenly purchase of the MRH-90s, I don't think so.

I agree. The development cost for an AEW variant of the NH-90 would be small, compared to the cost & operational drawbacks of introducing another type. A radar & ancillary systems could be chosen from one of those already in use, so there would be minimal development risk. Shipboard systems to act as a "ground" station for AEW helos would probably be offered as part of the standard fit - Spain operates AEW SH-3D off PdA, & will operate them (or a successor) off the BPE.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I agree. The development cost for an AEW variant of the NH-90 would be small, compared to the cost & operational drawbacks of introducing another type. A radar & ancillary systems could be chosen from one of those already in use, so there would be minimal development risk. Shipboard systems to act as a "ground" station for AEW helos would probably be offered as part of the standard fit - Spain operates AEW SH-3D off PdA, & will operate them (or a successor) off the BPE.

Given that these ships are still 6-8 years away from operational service the ADF has a few years to decide where it wants to go with issues such as AEW. It could be that a high endurance UAV might be the way forward.

As far as using the platforms for air defence, it would require 8(?) F-35s to provide round the clock CAPs. This would have a knock-on effect on the troop lift.

If there was a possibility of air attack would the RAN really consider placing a LHD 25-50nm off the coast while it unloads troops and equipment?

 

[Markus40]

The answer to your last question is yes. And they can with a fleet of air defence ANZACS and a Destoyer in place this is more than adequate to cover the air threat. If the Army were already redployed and dug in on a beach head or hill with air defence weapon such as a Rapier or similar and placed it in the immediate area of an LHD this would be very possible.

As to AEW, the RAN is going to have to find find a Helo option for its LHD until the technology of the UAV catches up for carrier operations. Until that time that "hole" in maritime defence for the LHD will always be there.

Given that these ships are still 6-8 years away from operational service the ADF has a few years to decide where it wants to go with issues such as AEW. It could be that a high endurance UAV might be the way forward.

As far as using the platforms for air defence, it would require 8(?) F-35s to provide round the clock CAPs. This would have a knock-on effect on the troop lift.

If there was a possibility of air attack would the RAN really consider placing a LHD 25-50nm off the coast while it unloads troops and equipment?

 

[Whiskyjack]

The answer to your last question is yes. And they can with a fleet of air defence ANZACS and a Destoyer in place this is more than adequate to cover the air threat. If the Army were already redployed and dug in on a beach head or hill with air defence weapon such as a Rapier or similar and placed it in the immediate area of an LHD this would be very possible.

As to AEW, the RAN is going to have to find find a Helo option for its LHD until the technology of the UAV catches up for carrier operations. Until that time that "hole" in maritime defence for the LHD will always be there.

There are a lot of 'ifs' there Markus.

For example the army may not be deployed ashore, it may be in the act of landing, which means the LHD is being used for helo assault operations?

What is the level of air threat, while this 'fleet' of air defence ANZACs is providing air cover, who is searching for subs?

I doubt the ADF would go anywhere near a coastline for a landing where it could be contested from air attacks, the only situation where I could see this happening is as part of a larger coalition op, where air cover was being provided from a larger carrier.

Any discussion of using the LHDs as a base for air defence needs to be careful when the LHDs are being used for troop carriage as well. To the best of my knowledge, during the Falklands the carriers were well away from the mainland covering the amphibious ops, they were not part of them.

 

[Markus40]

Subs?? Sure there are a lot of ifs and buts and i would need to see a particular scenario to out balance this type of deployment. But if we are talking ET, then theres no threat of Subs, but if Australia had a situation with the Indonesians then a sub threat could be of importance, however despite this, Submarine technology in this region isnt good enough to take it on as a particular threat, and even if it was, the ANZACs and P3s, can and would protect the LHD.

Argentina had subs too, and none to my knowledge were ever used against the carrier or surface units during the Falklands.

Australia has Subs too, (Collins Class) and this would supplement its ability to protect an LHD. Australia has the ability to project its Defence forces in its region including the pacific with the resources it has including an LHD. Even when unloading the LHD when the LHD is at its most vulnerable and the Helos are conducting amphibious landings support, Subs will be kept at bay with the spread of ANZACs and FFGs and P3s during this phase.

There are a lot of 'ifs' there Markus.

For example the army may not be deployed ashore, it may be in the act of landing, which means the LHD is being used for helo assault operations?

What is the level of air threat, while this 'fleet' of air defence ANZACs is providing air cover, who is searching for subs?

I doubt the ADF would go anywhere near a coastline for a landing where it could be contested from air attacks, the only situation where I could see this happening is as part of a larger coalition op, where air cover was being provided from a larger carrier.

Any discussion of using the LHDs as a base for air defence needs to be careful when the LHDs are being used for troop carriage as well. To the best of my knowledge, during the Falklands the carriers were well away from the mainland covering the amphibious ops, they were not part of them.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Subs?? Sure there are a lot of ifs and buts and i would need to see a particular scenario to out balance this type of deployment. But if we are talking ET, then theres no threat of Subs, but if Australia had a situation with the Indonesians then a sub threat could be of importance, however despite this, Submarine technology in this region isnt good enough to take it on as a particular threat, and even if it was, the ANZACs and P3s, can and would protect the LHD

.

Markus, in the first ET deployment there was a threat of Subs in the first few days of the deployment, in fact HMNZS Canterbury tracked a Indonesian sub while escorting one of the initial convoys. They were tense times.

Considering these LHDS won’t be in operational service for 7-10 years and regional trends I completely disagree with your threat analysis regarding subs.

Argentina had subs too, and none to my knowledge were ever used against the carrier or surface units during the Falklands.

I think you will find that subs were deployed and that they were considered to be one of the greatest dangers by the RN and were a major factor on how the British conducted the operation.

Australia has Subs too, (Collins Class) and this would supplement its ability to protect an LHD. Australia has the ability to project its Defence forces in its region including the pacific with the resources it has including an LHD. Even when unloading the LHD when the LHD is at its most vulnerable and the Helos are conducting amphibious landings support, Subs will be kept at bay with the spread of ANZACs and FFGs and P3s during this phase.

I am not sure any commander would see it that way. Until the threat is neutralised it is a major impediment to conducting ops and will be a factor in how the op is conducted.

The last thing a commander would wont to do is conduct a landing and not be 100% it can secure the sea from where the landing is being conducted.

Add to the threat of air attack and you begin to see the difficulties that any operation would face.

Of course I does depend on how real the threat is, who the ADF is operating with etc..

 

[Markus40]

WhiskyJack, the Canterbury only new about the Indonesian Sub after it had sailed under the Canterbury for some distance, and could have quite easily have been "picked" off. Yes they were tense times.

It looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one as well, as my anaylasis is quite different. A Submarine in any definition is a threat, and does need to be taken seriously, however with the Australian capabilities being better than they have ever been before there is no rational reason as to having the LHD off load and embark its troops 25-50miles off land.

The RN was always aware of the Sub threat by the Argentines and they incorporated their maritime strategy to cover any eventualities should they occur. Im glad you have suggested that any military commander may not see it this way, is because you and me are not military commanders, glad to say, however, weighing up the odds and putting in the most likely scenarios i would strongly sway on the side of projection of Australian Forces in the way i had previously described.

In regards to a commander being 100% sure that the sea lane is clear before a landing does take place, is really being unrealistic and untruthful to be honest. No military commander is going to have a 100% assurance that there isnt any unforseen threats out there and in most likely cases there will be. You just need to take the least likely risk. If it is Subs thats at the issue, then the Australian Navy have and will implement a defence "shield" to cover an attack should that happen. They are more tha capable.

.

Markus, in the first ET deployment there was a threat of Subs in the first few days of the deployment, in fact HMNZS Canterbury tracked a Indonesian sub while escorting one of the initial convoys. They were tense times.

Considering these LHDS won’t be in operational service for 7-10 years and regional trends I completely disagree with your threat analysis regarding subs.




I think you will find that subs were deployed and that they were considered to be one of the greatest dangers by the RN and were a major factor on how the British conducted the operation.



I am not sure any commander would see it that way. Until the threat is neutralised it is a major impediment to conducting ops and will be a factor in how the op is conducted.

The last thing a commander would wont to do is conduct a landing and not be 100% it can secure the sea from where the landing is being conducted.

Add to the threat of air attack and you begin to see the difficulties that any operation would face.

Of course I does depend on how real the threat is, who the ADF is operating with etc..

 

[Whiskyjack]

WhiskyJack, the Canterbury only new about the Indonesian Sub after it had sailed under the Canterbury for some distance, and could have quite easily have been "picked" off. Yes they were tense times.

It looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one as well, as my anaylasis is quite different. A Submarine in any definition is a threat, and does need to be taken seriously, however with the Australian capabilities being better than they have ever been before there is no rational reason as to having the LHD off load and embark its troops 25-50miles off land.

The RN was always aware of the Sub threat by the Argentines and they incorporated their maritime strategy to cover any eventualities should they occur. Im glad you have suggested that any military commander may not see it this way, is because you and me are not military commanders, glad to say, however, weighing up the odds and putting in the most likely scenarios i would strongly sway on the side of projection of Australian Forces in the way i had previously described.

In regards to a commander being 100% sure that the sea lane is clear before a landing does take place, is really being unrealistic and untruthful to be honest. No military commander is going to have a 100% assurance that there isnt any unforseen threats out there and in most likely cases there will be. You just need to take the least likely risk. If it is Subs thats at the issue, then the Australian Navy have and will implement a defence "shield" to cover an attack should that happen. They are more tha capable.

Fair enough Markus, just to make sure this is all in context, I am talking about using the platform for air defence at the same time as a landing is being made, my comment regarding subs was aimed as a reply to your ‘fleet of air defence ANZACs’ comment. IMO the ANZACs would be aimed more at the ASW role.

Just in regards to subs in the Falklands it is my understanding that an Argentine sub actually made 2 (?) unsuccessful attacks against Task Force units. The eventualities that they took into consideration was that they were willing to take losses to achieve their objectives. But they kept the carriers off shore to better protect them from air attack and sub threats! Since they realised that the loss of a carrier would potentially end any recapture of the Falklands.

So to have you ‘carrier’ parked off shore unloading troops and supplies in a littoral environment is a big risk!

However this is all good theory, IMHO any such ADF operation would include the USN.

Since the Falklands I cannot remember the last time a western force actually conducted an amphibious landing (either contested or uncontested on land), where it did not have complete air and naval dominance.