Does Australia need an aircraft carrier?

[Whiskyjack]

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....

But for the Falklands, the RAN FAA might have been operating Harriers for the last 20 odd years. Then again it might not.

 

[Sea Toby]

I'm convinced the Hawke government would have sold the HMAS Australia (Invincible) to India, Brazil, or Argentina to the highest bidder as soon as it could. I am completely convinced a Labour government would cancel the LHDs as quickly as possible, buying LPDs in their place. They would pay the cancellation fee, and swallow the steel already cut for any LHD. More than likely Labour would use the savings to buy the down payment for OPVs of a new Coast Guard.

 

[icelord]

I'm convinced the Hawke government would have sold the HMAS Australia (Invincible) to India, Brazil, or Argentina to the highest bidder as soon as it could. I am completely convinced a Labour government would cancel the LHDs as quickly as possible, buying LPDs in their place. They would pay the cancellation fee, and swallow the steel already cut for any LHD. More than likely Labour would use the savings to buy the down payment for OPVs of a new Coast Guard.

Coast Guides, not guards, cause they would relax the immigration laws as well. I just don't understand what you have against a labour govt. i mean, they did buy us the brilliant manoora and kanimbla off the USN scrap heap, no wait, they didn't make the scrap heap, my mistake, they made the RAN:roll . And then the was the swedish desgin for a sub, AKA collins, kinda like taking a stereo into a library then turning it up to full ball and then trying to read a book. Vice Admiral Collins would have rolled over in his grave when they started the engine up for the first time. The HMAS Australia would have been used for a few years, pranced around in some government commercial bout the ALP commitment to defence, scrapped by hawko and sent to indonesia to help our northern neighbours.
Its the way things go around here, if one government buys something to "boost" the ADF, the next either fixes its mistakes, or scraps it and comes up with a better idea. Perhaps DMO should be given more credit and criticism when it comes to purchases, then the govt. make purchases less political, and more military based. present to the defence minister a design they want, then give the money if it looks good for defence, not the party. The US is the biggest example of political purchases, where senators on committes can block the recommendation of the pentagon because none of the deal is going to their home state. It doesn't happen as much here, and the rumblings about AWD being built in SA instead of Vic because of the then defence minister being from SA might be a little nieve. The collins built in SA was over budget and time, but it was to do more with the design then construction.
The biggest advantage for the LHD is that there is not shortage of places to build it, and a good support of local industry.

 

[contedicavour]

Mmm.



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.



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



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.



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.

Thks for the data. Indeed, sometimes Jane's can be inaccurate. There are a couple of minor mistakes on the entry for the Cavour as well.
One curiosity : why doesn't the Spanish Navy exploit the full length of its "flat tops" for flight deck ? Same for Asturias as for BPE, and even on the BAMs and Serviola it's the same. It seems to me to be a waste of precious space, what is your opinion ?
Regarding speed, you are right all major amphibious ships are slow, and indeed the Asturias only has 25knots, still for rapid overseas deployment I would have made en effort adding a couple of LM2500 diesels. Speed does matter if you want a fully loaded Harrier or F35B STOVL take off, especially if your flight deck is already crammed with helos for example.

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

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

If Australia were to go second hand, I would rather opt for USN/USMC Tarawas. However with 7+1 Wasp and only initial plans for a follow-on class, I fear Tarawas won't be available for resale until 2015 at least.
There aren't any other second hand LPH/LHD around unfortunately.

cheers

 

[alexsa]

If Australia were to go second hand, I would rather opt for USN/USMC Tarawas.

I don't think we would on the basis of crew size alone. This is a pretty big issue for the RAN.

 

[contedicavour]

I don't think we would on the basis of crew size alone. This is a pretty big issue for the RAN.

Well in that case for the air group onboard personnel could be shared with the Air Force or with the Army... a bit like the joint harrier force in the UK.
New AWD DDGs probably also use a lot fewer personnel than the old CF Adams DDGs, so you may find some available personnel there as well. Same for Collins vs Oberon.

cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

While America may not keep its frigates 30 years, or even give them a mid-life refit to extend their lives, America tends to sell off its frigates after the 20 year point of their service lives. America doesn't consider frigates front line warships, and would rather buid new frigates to keep their shipyards busy, similar to the Dutch than waste funds on old frigates.

Unfortunately, America tends to keep its other assets the entire 30 years of service life, giving them their mid-life refits and extending their lives. You'll notice America started selling off frigates before their lives were 20 years old, the destroyers, landing ships docks, being sold are over 30 years in age, beyond their service lives. Besides frigates, America did sell off early many of their Newport class LSTs, having gone in another direction in doctrine. America also sold off Kidd class destroyers early, and paid off Mk 26 Standard missile launchers Aegis cruisers, avoiding the expense of upgrading them to Mk 41 VLS. Having cut the carrier force to 11 active airwings, they were seen as redunctant.

Another exception recently have been America's decommissioning of early Los Angeles class attack submarines, paying them off before an expensive nuclear refueling. The later Los Angeles class attack submarines, wtih the Tomahawk cruise missile cells, will be kept to the end of their service lives.

With the two Newports Australia received, Australia had to pay more to upgrade them as their hulls were not in the best condition. While nations such as New Zealand and Ireland may think of frigates as being too expensive, America doesn't. America has bigger fish to fry. If the Australians felt that the Newports were wanting in upkeep, you can take it to the bank that the 30 year old Tarawa LHAs are used up!

 

[bd popeye]

Reoes Austraila need an aircraft carrier?

I fear Tarawas won't be available for resale until 2015 at least.

There won't be any left most likely. On July 13, 2006 the USN and it's Asian allies sunk the ex-USS Belleau Wood(LHA-3) during a SINKEX excersise while conducting RIMPAC 2006. Scroll down to the bottom of the link below for pics.

http://navysite.de/ships/lha3.htm

If the Australians felt that the Newports were wanting in upkeep, you can take it to the bank that the 30 year old Tarawa LHAs are used up!

Very true. Remember that the USN deploys it's ship on a rotating basis. The USN does not keep it's ships in port rusting away.

 

[contedicavour]

There won't be any left most likely. On July 13, 2006 the USN and it's Asian allies sunk the ex-USS Belleau Wood(LHA-3) during a SINKEX excersise while conducting RIMPAC 2006. Scroll down to the bottom of the link below for pics.

http://navysite.de/ships/lha3.htm



Very true. Remember that the USN deploys it's ship on a rotating basis. The USN does not keep it's ships in port rusting away.

The USN is going nuts. Sinking a 25 years old LHA like that... They are left with 4 Tarawas, 7+1 Wasp and a new class of LHAs only on the drawing board so far.
Seen such waste makes be really angry :lul
Besides (I just visited the linked site) the ship proved til the end its strength, resisting Harpoon and 127mm gun hits.

 

[abramsteve]

While America may not keep its frigates 30 years, or even give them a mid-life refit to extend their lives, America tends to sell off its frigates after the 20 year point of their service lives. America doesn't consider frigates front line warships, and would rather buid new frigates to keep their shipyards busy, similar to the Dutch than waste funds on old frigates.

I have always liked that way of keeping shipyards busy. I feel its an idea we should use here too.

bd popeye, Im not sure if you were having a dig or not, but the RAN does not keep its ships tied up rusting. The Kanimbla and the Manoora (ex Newports's) are probably two of our most deployed vessels, certainly having taken part in every large deployment of Australian forces in the last 6 years!

 

[Sea Toby]

There is no replacement for sea lift. While air lift can move many men and some equipment quicker, when it comes to moving a battalion or even a company of men, equipment, and a month's worth of supplies, they come up wanting. Any sizeable Army deployment requires sea lift. These ships have been busy because the army has been busy.

 

[bd popeye]

Re: Does Austraila need an aircraft carrier?

bd popeye, Im not sure if you were having a dig or not, but the RAN does not keep its ships tied up rusting.

Oh no..I would never ever make fun of the RAN, RN, FN or JMSDF..Those shipmates are top notch..there are some other navies in the world though that think they are powerful but in reality seldom go to sea. That's where the real training enviroment is located. At sea!!

The USN is going nuts. Sinking a 25 years old LHA like that... They are left with 4 Tarawas, 7+1 Wasp and a new class of LHAs only on the drawing board so far.
Seen such waste makes be really angry
Besides (I just visited the linked site) the ship proved til the end its strength, resisting Harpoon and 127mm gun hits.
2 Days Ago 01:24 PM

I agree 100%. What a friggin' waste of fine naval assets. As a 20 year USN retiree it sickens me. Her sinking kinda puts the damper on the crowd that thinks you can sink a carrier with missiles. Now an ADCAP torpedo could reek some serious damage. In fact that's what sank the ex-USS Okinawa in a '92 SINKEX after it was attacked with air launched weapons;

http://www.csp.navy.mil/news/SINKEX.htm

Though the ADCAP torpedo was the weapon that ultimately sank the Ex-Okinawa, it wasn’t the only ordnance employed against her that day. Prior to the warshot firing, naval air training operations were conducted involving several Maverick and Harpoon missile firings as well as a number of general-purpose bomb drops. Though the Ex-Okinawa did sustain some minor damage during the air exercises, there was never any sign of her going down prematurely. After the actual torpedo detonation, the Ex-Okinawa, due to its large size (598 feet long, 84 feet wide, 13,000 ton light displacement) and watertight condition, listed increasingly for almost four hours before ultimately descend below the surface.

NUWC Keyport personnel on staff at COMSUBPAC and NUWC Newport support personnel on site during the exercise contributed highly to this very successful fleet operation.

June, 2002

 

[Rich]

The Okinawa proved to be a tough old Lady. Put me on the list of those who despise such waste and disrespect towards a grand old ship.

 

[Sea Toby]

All of the Tarawas are 25-30 years in age, the Belleau Wood was 28. Unfortunately, ships age and have a service life. Once a ship reaches her service life, its time to pay them off. I prefer ships CHEAT the breakers, either being sunk as a reef or sunk during a large naval exercise such as RIMPAC. At least the wreck is still known by their names, once the scrappers get them a ship loses any identity.

 

[icelord]

I prefer ships CHEAT the breakers, either being sunk as a reef or sunk during a large naval exercise such as RIMPAC. At least the wreck is still known by their names, once the scrappers get them a ship loses any identity.

Its now customary in the RAN to turn ex fleet ships into a reef for divers. Its not new to sink them off the coast, but for a reef to grow is. RAN history showed that 1924-1948 they sunk vessels south east of sydney, where a "ghost fleet" exists(aus warship mag). Could u imagine the sight if it were possible to dive out there.

HMAS Canberra, one of the first RAN's first guided missile frigates will be sunk for a reef, and their may be plans for the HMAS Adelaide to follow suit, although there is a call for the Adelaide to become a museum.

Only the HMAS Vampire, which is at the Sydney maritime museum and the HMAS Diamantina, at Queensland maritime museum remain of RAN history. although it does cost a bit and effort to maintain, find me an ex-navy who is not willing to volunteer his time, and i'll find you 10 who are. Yeah sure, they might continue on in the steel that goes into some japanese ferry, but the soul of the ship is lost.

Are there any ex-carriers that are used as wrecks? surely somewhere in the pacific their would be the mini-carriers of WW2, but have any been sunk for a reef.

 

[ren0312]

The USN is going nuts. Sinking a 25 years old LHA like that... They are left with 4 Tarawas, 7+1 Wasp and a new class of LHAs only on the drawing board so far.
Seen such waste makes be really angry :lul
Besides (I just visited the linked site) the ship proved til the end its strength, resisting Harpoon and 127mm gun hits.

Well that is what you get when you have a government that takes care of its military, anyway, throwing away ships when they are too young is a much more preferable to not having enough platforms because your government keeps on cutting your budget.2

 

[contedicavour]

Well that is what you get when you have a government that takes care of its military, anyway, throwing away ships when they are too young is a much more preferable to not having enough platforms because your government keeps on cutting your budget.2

I agree with you 1000% ...
However since we're often short of budget on this side of the Atlantic... I would have taken the Tarawa for amphibious operations with our newly created Amphibious Brigade (the original San Marco regiment, the Carlotto support regiment, and the Army's Serenissima-Lagunari regiment, plus artillery and attack helo support). Our 3 LPDs are not enough to take them aboard with sufficient equipment. Sure, we could use our 2 carriers, but they weren't built to be used primarily as LPDs...
That's why I'm angry at seeing that our government doesn't request (for free) delivery of a used Tarawa.

cheers

 

[Whiskyjack]

I agree with you 1000% ...
However since we're often short of budget on this side of the Atlantic... I would have taken the Tarawa for amphibious operations with our newly created Amphibious Brigade (the original San Marco regiment, the Carlotto support regiment, and the Army's Serenissima-Lagunari regiment, plus artillery and attack helo support). Our 3 LPDs are not enough to take them aboard with sufficient equipment. Sure, we could use our 2 carriers, but they weren't built to be used primarily as LPDs...
That's why I'm angry at seeing that our government doesn't request (for free) delivery of a used Tarawa.

cheers

Lets not forget the 1000+ crew here, would take a big chunk of any European navy, plus any support/running costs.

 

[contedicavour]

Lets not forget the 1000+ crew here, would take a big chunk of any European navy, plus any support/running costs.

Yes, the crew is huge. However with the reduced crews (because of automation) on our Cavour, Doria and FREMMs vs the Vittorio Veneto, the Audace and the Maestrale, we could spare a 1000 sailors to man a Tarawa. Besides, we could use it as a backup : man it only with the basic services, and add the flight services personnel only if the Cavour or the Garibaldi are in maintenance (we'd use personnel from Cavour in clear terms). This would reduce ongoing personnel to 500-600.
Regarding maintenance, the US 6th fleet has always used facilities in Italy to maintain even older LPDs. So with some chance we could continue using existing facilities for limited maintenance.
Unfortunately both the Navy and the defence industry would be against, because of (pretty much legitimate) fears that with such a ship in commission, the government would depriorize replacement of the Garibaldi in 2015, and would abandon plans for a modern large 4th LPDH.

cheers