Does Australia need an aircraft carrier?

[Sea Toby]

Oh, I agree its the Italian Cavour. From what I read its already been launced and will be completed next year, whereas the Spanish LHD won't be launched until next year. But when I Googled Spanish LHD, this link was near the top of the first page, and as can be seen, its a link to the Spanish LHD, but with a Cavour picture, not a Spanish LHD picture. While I was misled by a wrong picture, I do have some sympathy to this website, as the two ships do look fairly similar, not exactly the same, but close.

The LHDs will never have enough jump jets to be considered an aircraft carrier. Since the air force will pull the plug at 10-15, there will be no AEW helicopters to go along with carriers. At best the LHDs will operate 6 or 7 jump jets each, or none at all. One LHD may operate 15, the other one none. They will be LHDs, not aircraft carriers. Having a few jump jets will be great for air strikes and air cover of an amphibious operation, long enough for the forces to either grab or build a runway.

My thinking is that the air force don't want any jump jets, but will forfeit a few, 10-15, so that the LHDs can have a few, as the government may wish to order a few for the LHDs. Its also my opinion the navy will want them as naval aircraft, and the air force will fight an interservice war to keep them as air force assets.

 

[contedicavour]

Oh, I agree its the Italian Cavour. From what I read its already been launced and will be completed next year, whereas the Spanish LHD won't be launched until next year. But when I Googled Spanish LHD, this link was near the top of the first page, and as can be seen, its a link to the Spanish LHD, but with a Cavour picture, not a Spanish LHD picture. While I was misled by a wrong picture, I do have some sympathy to this website, as the two ships do look fairly similar, not exactly the same, but close.

The LHDs will never have enough jump jets to be considered an aircraft carrier. Since the air force will pull the plug at 10-15, there will be no AEW helicopters to go along with carriers. At best the LHDs will operate 6 or 7 jump jets each, or none at all. One LHD may operate 15, the other one none. They will be LHDs, not aircraft carriers. Having a few jump jets will be great for air strikes and air cover of an amphibious operation, long enough for the forces to either grab or build a runway.

My thinking is that the air force don't want any jump jets, but will forfeit a few, 10-15, so that the LHDs can have a few, as the government may wish to order a few for the LHDs. Its also my opinion the navy will want them as naval aircraft, and the air force will fight an interservice war to keep them as air force assets.

I'm just back from La Spezia-Muggiano shipyard. The Cavour is completed and almost ready to start sea trials. Unfortunately I wasn't allowed to take pictures inside the shipyard and the pictures I took from outside are low definition.
The structure is 100% completed, the mast with EMPAR is completed and the second mast with long range air search radar is done but with some scaffolding still on it. The flight deck and the sky jump are completed as well though the workers haven't cleared all of their materials still stocked here and there.

Regarding the comparison with the Spanish SPS, sorry guys but the 2 ships are very different, although they are both approx 250 metres long and approx 30,000 tonners.
The Spanish ship is primarily conceived to support an amphibious Marines force, using helicopters and Harriers as support for landing operations.
The Cavour is a full blown aircraft carrier, with Empar, S1850, Aster missiles, and a max complement of 24 harriers/eh-101/nh-90, 12 of which in the hangar (a bit less with F-35), and is also a much faster ship (28kn).

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

Oh and by the way I have posted in the gallery some more recent pictures of the cavour (end 2005).
In the freewebz site there is also a mistake : the pennant number is 550, not 552 as indicated. I saw it painted big on the ship's sides.
Last but not least, the site mentions the Spanish ship as capable of hosting 30 jets+helos. This seems to me impossible, look at the drawing at the bottom right-hand side of the dedicated page. The ship can take 12 in the hangar and 12 on the deck, maximum. This would however be a hurdle for amphibious operations since if you fill the hangar below you'll have serious trouble finding space for the AIFVs, trucks and MBTs needed to accompany the Marines... landing on LCUs and LCACs leaving the ship from the dock well aft of the ship.

Bottomline, we're comparing 2 ships of the same size, of which one is a 24-kn LPH and the other is a CVL

cheers

 

[Gladius]

Last but not least, the site mentions the Spanish ship as capable of hosting 30 jets+helos. This seems to me impossible, look at the drawing at the bottom right-hand side of the dedicated page. The ship can take 12 in the hangar and 12 on the deck, maximum.

That's inaccurated contedicavour. Navantia and the Spanish Navy said: up to 36 STOVL aircrafts and Helos, but only in the air operations dedicated configuration (as will be during the refit times of the spanish STOVL carrier Príncipe de Asturias). This configuration is planed to serve with a max. of 30 planes and helos under deck and six operating in the fliying deck. Navantia designed the vehicle garage adyacent to the hangar with this porpouse in mind, to be habilited as an extension (with capacity for twelve chinooks, for example) of the hangar, obtaining a total surface available for planes and helos in that deck of 2046 mts2.

This would however be a hurdle for amphibious operations since if you fill the hangar below you'll have serious trouble finding space for the AIFVs, trucks and MBTs needed to accompany the Marines... landing on LCUs and LCACs leaving the ship from the dock well aft of the ship.

Thats right, the LHD lose one of his garage (for light vehicles) in the Max. Air Operations configuration, retainin only his dock deck and the heavy vehicles garage, reducing his vehicle cargo capacities substantially (Dock: 4 LCM-1E + 4-6 RHIBs & HV Garage: 16 MBTs + 12 AAV-7A + 12 Scorpions/Piranha IFVs/M-109A5E for example).

Bottomline, we're comparing 2 ships of the same size, of which one is a 24-kn LPH and the other is a CVL

I agree with you, both ships are not comparable, neither they intend it. The air role with STOVL aviation of the LHD is only secondary while that is the main role of the Cavour and both ships are designed according to those premises, one as Amphibious Assault Ship and the other as a STOVL Aircraft Carrier.

 

[contedicavour]

What is the cost of the Navantia LPH ? I'm interested since around 2010-2015the Italian Navy is supposed to build a 4th large LPH&LPD, ideally additional to the fleet, most probably as a replacement for the Garibaldi (which cannot outlive 2020).

Regarding the maximum number of aircrafts that can be taken onboard, I feel builders should only specify the max number of operational aircrafts+helos that a carrier can operate. Specifying the max number of jets/helos that can be transported aboard in exceptional circumstances is according to me not of much aid. Think of it : unless the ship is doing aircraft transport from one harbour to another, what sense would it make to saturate space aboard thus seriously hampering operations ?

cheers

 

[Gladius]

What is the cost of the Navantia LPH ? I'm interested since around 2010-2015the Italian Navy is supposed to build a 4th large LPH&LPD, ideally additional to the fleet, most probably as a replacement for the Garibaldi (which cannot outlive 2020).

The budget aproved by the Cabinet for the BPE/SPS is 360 mill €.

Specifying the max number of jets/helos that can be transported aboard in exceptional circumstances is according to me not of much aid.

No. The number that I said was the max number of operational aircrafts+helos in the Max. Air Operations configuration. Utilizing the garage adyacent as an operative extension of the hangar was a disposition of the Navy and a obvious signal of this porpouse, is the presence of the elevator of stern, that communicates the garage with the flight deck independently of the main hangar.
On missions of pure transport with his max. store capacity, the number of helos & aircraft stored is bigger, because you can use the second garage of the dock deck (and the dock itself if you want) for transport, doubling the cargo and store capacity for them. But this is not important, the Spanish navy never deployed air components in that manner (on overseas operations) and is doubtful that be done in the future.

Think of it : unless the ship is doing aircraft transport from one harbour to another, what sense would it make to saturate space aboard thus seriously hampering operations ?

Obviously, but you remember, for Spain this is not a problem, with our numbers of Navy's STOVL aicrafts (16) and helos (11 SH-3 & 10 AB 212) is a very small chance to deploy all of them in the LHD (a minimun of 10 will be in the LPDs and AORs). The main porpouse for the high air capacity in the LHD is mix the air component with the Army units, in joint operations. For that reason (and many others) the light vehicle garage was designed to serve as a secondary hangar with the Chinooks & Cougars of the FAMET (Aeromobile Forces of the Army) in mind, for example. That will permit to operate without excessive problems with both diferent formations and logistics with their own independents access to flight deck, without cramping the ops as would occur in a single hangar with all mixed and revolved.

- - -

Oh, to no "getting a bit off track" as mod said in the other threat about Australian AWD's, I answer your question here.

I have the drawing of the BPE under my eyes, where could the ESSM be fitted ? Aft of the superstructure ? Because in front of it there is an elevator for the hangar. At the extreme end of the ship where there is no flight deck ? That would be problematic since it risks interfering with the aft elevator. The space at the extreme front of the ship next to the sky jump also seems limited for missiles and risks interfering with flight operations.

I don't know. Navantia and the Spanish Navy said that the BPE/SPS was designed with the weigh and space reserve for it, but where????
I am not naval designer or engineer, neither I have the detailed plans of design so I trust in the word of Navantia and the Spanish Navy.
About where, well its depends of what launcher we talk, a version of the Mk48 can be installed in the superstructure of the island, or the compact version on the flight deck level, all are speculations on my part. And you can want a diferent launcher sistem installed for them, as the Mk29, not an VLS and could be fited on many positions. But as I said, actually only the Navy and Navantia knows the details of the design.
The two RAM positions commented in the Article of FN were in a scale model presented in the exhibition of the Spanish Navy in the Nautical Meeting of Barcelona 2005. But that is all about them.

Another question for you : has Spain prepared for Harrier Plus replacements ? Does it plan to buy off the shelf F-35 ?

The Spanish Navy is waiting to see what happen with the F-35B before deciding to request the acquisition of the aircraft. Final cost, performance, capacities, there are many details on the airplane still in the air so the Navy do nothing but to be watching him. But you remember, the Navy is the only interested in Spain. As far 20-30 planes, maybe few more... Its depends of the replacement of the STOVL carrier Príncipe de Asturias (Not JSF capable AFAIK).

 

[icelord]

Given the arguments about whether embarked F-35B aircraft would detract from the available lift/transport of the two future Canberra LHD, does anyone know more about the proposed SeaLift capacity from Joint Project 2048? Depending on the proposed capability of the SeaLift, reductions in lift/transport capacity of a LHD might not mean much.

It seems logical to me that giving an upcoming vessel the flexibility to operate additional aircraft makes sense, as long as there isn't a great deal of negative impact on the vessel's ability to carry out it's primary design function. Giving the LHDs additional potential capabilites would expand the options available to the ADF. Are there any figures estimating the difference in construction and operating costs for a fixed-wing vs. non-fixed wing capable LHD in the primary amphibious transport mode?

Getting off topic, or back on, idk anymore It may make sense to take a Navantia with the possibility of a ramp so that one ship with F-35Bs operates in conjunction with troop deployments on the 2nd ship. It could be feasable, but, pointless in some respect as has been pointed out that Aus usually deploys with the aid of other nations, who would have carriers, and that most places where the world intervenes have a neighbour who is willing to help, therefore making a RAAF deployment more viable. Plus the continuos training of pilots to operate off a carrier, as well as excess costs, delays and use is a reason why having a ramp would be of little point. more negatives then positives in that argument.

The LHD would be best to operate with a defensive shield of ANZAC and AWD ships and have tigers in escort with the NH-90s deploying assests. By making a corridor using either Anzac or AWD it would reduce the need for any F-35s.

As i have stated before, it is a bigger financial burden to have sole purpose carrier, at least with LHDs they can multi task with plenty of storage space for deployment of Army assets

 

[contedicavour]

The budget aproved by the Cabinet for the BPE/SPS is 360 mill €.



No. The number that I said was the max number of operational aircrafts+helos in the Max. Air Operations configuration. Utilizing the garage adyacent as an operative extension of the hangar was a disposition of the Navy and a obvious signal of this porpouse, is the presence of the elevator of stern, that communicates the garage with the flight deck independently of the main hangar.
On missions of pure transport with his max. store capacity, the number of helos & aircraft stored is bigger, because you can use the second garage of the dock deck (and the dock itself if you want) for transport, doubling the cargo and store capacity for them. But this is not important, the Spanish navy never deployed air components in that manner (on overseas operations) and is doubtful that be done in the future.



Obviously, but you remember, for Spain this is not a problem, with our numbers of Navy's STOVL aicrafts (16) and helos (11 SH-3 & 10 AB 212) is a very small chance to deploy all of them in the LHD (a minimun of 10 will be in the LPDs and AORs). The main porpouse for the high air capacity in the LHD is mix the air component with the Army units, in joint operations. For that reason (and many others) the light vehicle garage was designed to serve as a secondary hangar with the Chinooks & Cougars of the FAMET (Aeromobile Forces of the Army) in mind, for example. That will permit to operate without excessive problems with both diferent formations and logistics with their own independents access to flight deck, without cramping the ops as would occur in a single hangar with all mixed and revolved.

- - -

Oh, to no "getting a bit off track" as mod said in the other threat about Australian AWD's, I answer your question here.



I don't know. Navantia and the Spanish Navy said that the BPE/SPS was designed with the weigh and space reserve for it, but where????
I am not naval designer or engineer, neither I have the detailed plans of design so I trust in the word of Navantia and the Spanish Navy.
About where, well its depends of what launcher we talk, a version of the Mk48 can be installed in the superstructure of the island, or the compact version on the flight deck level, all are speculations on my part. And you can want a diferent launcher sistem installed for them, as the Mk29, not an VLS and could be fited on many positions. But as I said, actually only the Navy and Navantia knows the details of the design.
The two RAM positions commented in the Article of FN were in a scale model presented in the exhibition of the Spanish Navy in the Nautical Meeting of Barcelona 2005. But that is all about them.



The Spanish Navy is waiting to see what happen with the F-35B before deciding to request the acquisition of the aircraft. Final cost, performance, capacities, there are many details on the airplane still in the air so the Navy do nothing but to be watching him. But you remember, the Navy is the only interested in Spain. As far 20-30 planes, maybe few more... Its depends of the replacement of the STOVL carrier Príncipe de Asturias (Not JSF capable AFAIK).

Wow, 360 million only, this is real cheap ! The Cavour carrier with all its equipment costs 1.2 billion !
If I can add some perspective, here is what the latest edition (2006/07) of Jane's Fighting Ships says :
"32 NH-90 OR 19 AV-8B OR 12 CH-47 OR 12 NH-90 + 11 AV8B"
This is the maximum for both 1000m2 hangar and 2000m2 garage.
Jane's also mentions "there is space and weight reserved for a point-defence system", though it doesn't say whether that means just Phalanx, or RAM, or even a VLS system like Mk48.
I hope your Navy will also order JSFs so that we can standardize our navies' activities as we already do in the Spanish-Italian Amphibious Group.
Btw, Jane's mentions mid life update for Principe de Asturias around 2008-09, may be this includes adaptation to JSF. I know this is under discussion for the Garibaldi MLU planned 2008, though the decision hasn't been taken yet.

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

back on topic on Australia's new flat tops

I've just carefully analyzed the French Mistrals and the Spanish SPS/BPE.
The Spanish BPE are much larger ships, though the flight deck doesn't go all the way aft, which limits the differences in flight deck sizes.
One thing that worries me is that both classes of ships are slow, with the Mistrals at 19 knots only !!
That will create serious problems if you plan to operate F35s...

Any perspective on this ?

cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

They're plenty fast enough for amphibious ships. There aren't too many amphibious ships that go faster. It takes a lot more fuel and power to go faster. I assume since the Spanish intend to use their LHD as a light carrier, with Harriers, the speed must be okay or else they would have added better engines for more speed. I have always said the LHDs are amphibious ships first, light carriers second.

How much more does speed cost. For a similar size ship, the Italian Cavour costs $1 billion plus US dollars, the French and Spanish LHDs costs around $400 million US dollars. That's the price of two ships versus one. You get what you pay for.

 

[contedicavour]

They're plenty fast enough for amphibious ships. There aren't too many amphibious ships that go faster. It takes a lot more fuel and power to go faster. I assume since the Spanish intend to use their LHD as a light carrier, with Harriers, the speed must be okay or else they would have added better engines for more speed. I have always said the LHDs are amphibious ships first, light carriers second.

How much more does speed cost. For a similar size ship, the Italian Cavour costs $1 billion plus US dollars, the French and Spanish LHDs costs around $400 million US dollars. That's the price of two ships versus one. You get what you pay for.

Yep right, spend 400 million (euros btw, not dollars) and you end up with 19 knots (Mistral) and 21 (Spanish BPE). Just prey for the wind to be strong, or the F35s will only take off with Sidewinders (max load)
If the Australian Navy doesn't mind, it will be further proof that these ships are after all LHDs fullstop, and that hopes of using F35s systematically aboard won't come to much

cheers

 

[ajay_ijn]

why doesn't Aus considering buying Second hand British Carrier.
As They Australias requirement will be mostly for patrol oceans surrounding it.

 

[ajay_ijn]

why doesn't Aus considering buying Second hand British Carrier.
As They Australias requirement will be mostly for patrol oceans surrounding it.

 

[Sea Toby]

For starters an Invincible class light carrier has a large crew, old combat data weapons systems, are 25 years in age, and don't have any of the required spares. Plus, Australia doesn't have enough ASW helicopters, nor does it have any Harriers for a light carrier. Considering Australia's past experiences with overaged used vessels, its best they don't follow that path again.

Australia does have three ageing amphibious ships which need to be replaced. Without the proper sea lift and amphibious capability, Australia won't be able to influence events in its sphere of influence. Simply put, they need a new amphibious capabililty more than they need a light carrier.

Australia doesn't need a light carrier until they have the required VSTOL fighters and ASW helicopters in its inventory. Who wants to sail an empty light carrier around?

 

[Gladius]

Mmm.

If I can add some perspective, here is what the latest edition (2006/07) of Jane's Fighting Ships says :
"32 NH-90 OR 19 AV-8B OR 12 CH-47 OR 12 NH-90 + 11 AV8B"
This is the maximum for both 1000m2 hangar and 2000m2 garage.

Yeah, and directly from the Official Spanish Navy website:

<<· 12 Aeronaves en Hangar (incluidos CH-47 "Chinook") ... pudiendo aumentar esta capacidad usando el garaje de vehículos ligeros como hangar hasta 30 Aeronaves...
· 6 Aeronaves en Cubierta de Vuelo (Incluidos hasta 4 CH-47 "Chinook" operando simultáneamente).>>

Traduction:

<<· 12 Aircrafts in hangar (included CH-47 "Chinook" ) ... being able to enlarge this capacity using the garage of light vehicles as hangar, to 30 Aircrafts...
· 6 Aircrafts on Flight Deck (Included up to 4 CH-47 "Chinook" operating simultaneously).>>

Oh! and Jane's is wrong about the hangar and garages dimensions. Taken from Official Spanish Navy website:

Hangar & Light Vehicles Garage = 2046m2.
Heavy Vehicles Garage = 1.400 mts2
Dock = 975m2

I prefer the version of the Spanish Navy, because I suppose she is better informed of the capacities of the ship. But we don't continue this discussión over minimum numbers or details on diferents publications, it's not too important.

The Spanish BPE are much larger ships, though the flight deck doesn't go all the way aft, which limits the differences in flight deck sizes.

Exactly, the difference is minimal: 201,5m (BPE/SPS); 199 m (Mistral).

One thing that worries me is that both classes of ships are slow, with the Mistrals at 19 knots only !!
That will create serious problems if you plan to operate F35s...

Well, the BPE/SPS will be in the same speed range as the actual Wasp (21-22 knots) & future LHA(R) classes (proyected +20 knots): https://navcms.news.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4

The Mistral class is slower, but remember, the Mistral and Tonerre weren't designed to be STOVL capable, if Armaris want to do that (and with reasonable payloads too). They have to do some modifications in the design of the ship (propulsion, add a Sky-Jump, weight distribution...).

The plans of Spanish Navy with the BPE/SPS, is to maintain a sustained speed of 21 knots for air operations with STOVL aviation. AFAIK the Spanish Navy considers this, a safe and sufficient velocity, to operate with F-35B and Ospreys.

Btw, Jane's mentions mid life update for Principe de Asturias around 2008-09, may be this includes adaptation to JSF. I know this is under discussion for the Garibaldi MLU planned 2008, though the decision hasn't been taken yet.

Yep, for 2008-2009. But without compatibilization for F-35B, as far as I know. The modifications needed for it would be too costly for a ship with more than twenty years. Our Defense Budget it is stretched "ad maximum" with all the programs of acquisition and modernization already signed or planned. Better wait to his replacement.

 

[ajay_ijn]

For starters an Invincible class light carrier has a large crew, old combat data weapons systems, are 25 years in age, and don't have any of the required spares. Plus, Australia doesn't have enough ASW helicopters, nor does it have any Harriers for a light carrier. Considering Australia's past experiences with overaged used vessels, its best they don't follow that path again.

Australia does have three ageing amphibious ships which need to be replaced. Without the proper sea lift and amphibious capability, Australia won't be able to influence events in its sphere of influence. Simply put, they need a new amphibious capabililty more than they need a light carrier.

Australia doesn't need a light carrier until they have the required VSTOL fighters and ASW helicopters in its inventory. Who wants to sail an empty light carrier around?

I don't have idea about Spares but a Carrier if maintained well can be used for 40-50 years.

India has buyed two second hand British Carriers, One of them was the FlagShip was RN during the falkisland war.
India got the second one in 1985 and using it till 2010.
India got the first one in 1963 and retired it in 1990s.
One of them even participated in Conflict.
India had no spare problem, they had a major overhaul and going to sea reguarly with no maintainence problems.
About Sea Harriers, Aussies Can lease some of them from US or Britain untill JSF comes.
But they will be costly to maintain, thats for sure more than a Amphibious Ship.

An good Alternative will be
a A Big Ship which can operate some 5 helicopters with effective Sea Lift and ASW Patrol Capabilities.
India is buying a Second hand US Amphibious warship with similar capabilities.

 

[alexsa]

I don't have idea about Spares but a Carrier if maintained well can be used for 40-50 years.

India has buyed two second hand British Carriers, One of them was the FlagShip was RN during the falkisland war.
India got the second one in 1985 and using it till 2010.
India got the first one in 1963 and retired it in 1990s.
One of them even participated in Conflict.
India had no spare problem, they had a major overhaul and going to sea reguarly with no maintainence problems.
About Sea Harriers, Aussies Can lease some of them from US or Britain untill JSF comes.
But they will be costly to maintain, thats for sure more than a Amphibious Ship.

An good Alternative will be
a A Big Ship which can operate some 5 helicopters with effective Sea Lift and ASW Patrol Capabilities.
India is buying a Second hand US Amphibious warship with similar capabilities.

Crew size is crtically important to operating costs and sustainability.

Crew size on invincible 1083

Crew size on BPE 243, however I suspect any air wing would be extra.

Even allowing 200 for the air wing which is a little over the top there is a difference of 640 of crew members. That equates to a massive operating cost difference.

The BPE is based on commercial systems which, generally (there have been some notible failures in this respect) are designed to operate on an almost continous basis for the life of the vessel. For evidence of this have at look at your average merchant vessel which, in todays commecial climate, is required to spend most of its time at sea earning revenue wiht minimum time in port.
The Invincible is not, nor are the systems young and this will result in much higher operating costs.

 

[abramsteve]

why doesn't Aus considering buying Second hand British Carrier.
As They Australias requirement will be mostly for patrol oceans surrounding it.

Well Im hoping, and I think, the days of us buying anyones second hand equiptment is over. The Brits carriers simpily wouldnt fill the roles we would require for the reasons mentioned above and before.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Well Im hoping, and I think, the days of us buying anyones second hand equiptment is over. The Brits carriers simpily wouldnt fill the roles we would require for the reasons mentioned above and before.

It would be slightly ironic getting the Invincible 25 years after the RAN was supposed to!

 

[abramsteve]

It would be slightly ironic getting the Invincible 25 years after the RAN was supposed to!

Yeah it would be! I actually completley forgot about that bit of history. Had there been no Falklands war and we had got her, I wonder if we would still have her in commission....