kinda agree about mothballing subs, maybe the hulls and engines, but no point moth balling the combat systems, surely these could be installed as the ships are commissioned. as for the conscription comment....not so sure , there are a lot of ex-soldiers,sailors and airmen in the workforce....one of the benefits of a high turn over rate. Im sure if a serious conflict arose, and numbers were needed, we could treble our defence force in a very short time. Putting them in a tank, sub, fighter plane that has been stored for thirty years, would not be a good move, imagine a mirage 111O going up against an SU30, or setting sail in HMAS Vampire to tackle to take on a modern destroyer. Come to think of it,other than ammo,small arms and the basics, mothballing really is starting to sound stupid to me.
Does Australia need an aircraft carrier?
- Thread starter Big-E
- Start date
davidcandy
New Member
I'd rotate mothballed equipment between active equipment. And upgrade it as well.
It's a mistake to think old upgraded gear will never be usefull. While I'm no advocate of this point of view it is possible all hi tech units get destroyed in the first week of the war. Those with a low tech backup will prosper. Not to mention it's use in depth and economy of force - even mass.
It's a mistake to think old upgraded gear will never be usefull. While I'm no advocate of this point of view it is possible all hi tech units get destroyed in the first week of the war. Those with a low tech backup will prosper. Not to mention it's use in depth and economy of force - even mass.
rebellious
New Member
hmm does anyone know if australia has the manpower to run a large carrier. and do u know if australia will build a carrier with 30+ jets or a small one dominated by choppers. to be honest i dont see much of a need because i dont see what enemies australia has. america does not require naval assistance in the middle east. i read in a thread australia doesnt really have the manpower or the money to get a carrier. the cost of an f-35 is also a lot.Big-E said:
fill me in
rebellious
New Member
thats because the south pacific is made up of small islands and australia is the only country visible on a map in that area, apart from New Zealand.Whiskyjack said:
As I understand it Australia will have less than 100 F-35s replacing F-111 and F/A-18 types and these will be non VSTOL variants - and any carrier will probably have to share this pool... So, if the carrier had to take from this pool a CTOL carrier might seem sensible. However, the expense of building a dedicated CTOL carrier is really a non starter, just look at the funding issues / projected costs experienced by the UK and French. IMO its just not an option for Australia and the money would be much better spent elsewhere.
Option two is to re role one of the LHDs as mentioned earlier as or rather 'if' required. The issue here is you now need the VSTOL F-35 and its going to cost more per unit when i fear securing up to 100 CTOL F-35's is already an issue... Again unlikely.
On a positive note once the LHDs are built, Australia could put aircraft to sea albeit in limited numbers, should the strategic situation require it. This assumes the LHD has some facilities 'built in', and that the VSTOL F-35 programme delivers. A useful future option but not one IMHO that needs to be exercised today.
As to redirecting most of the RAN to provide a CBG - hmmm...
Option two is to re role one of the LHDs as mentioned earlier as or rather 'if' required. The issue here is you now need the VSTOL F-35 and its going to cost more per unit when i fear securing up to 100 CTOL F-35's is already an issue... Again unlikely.
On a positive note once the LHDs are built, Australia could put aircraft to sea albeit in limited numbers, should the strategic situation require it. This assumes the LHD has some facilities 'built in', and that the VSTOL F-35 programme delivers. A useful future option but not one IMHO that needs to be exercised today.
As to redirecting most of the RAN to provide a CBG - hmmm...
In the grand scheme of things the steel costs of fitting the LHD with a ramp during build are minimal compared to the project cost. Conversion of a vessel after build is always more expensive and sometimes significnatly so.
I have no illusion that the F-35B is curently a real possiblity for the RAAF or the RAN, it is not on current reports, but building the ability to operate these aircraft (and as a result the Harrier GR-9/AV8B+) into the LHD would seem to be a way providing increased flexibilty into the vessel and interoperability with our allies at minimal cost. It would also provide the opportunity to build skills and provides a bit of 'future proofing' just in case the F-35B is ever purchased.
Making the LHD platform more flexible make sense for Australia. In my opinion a full blown CV does not, at this stage.
I have no illusion that the F-35B is curently a real possiblity for the RAAF or the RAN, it is not on current reports, but building the ability to operate these aircraft (and as a result the Harrier GR-9/AV8B+) into the LHD would seem to be a way providing increased flexibilty into the vessel and interoperability with our allies at minimal cost. It would also provide the opportunity to build skills and provides a bit of 'future proofing' just in case the F-35B is ever purchased.
Making the LHD platform more flexible make sense for Australia. In my opinion a full blown CV does not, at this stage.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #27
After reviewing all the data, needs and strategic goals of AU and the RAN I come to agree with this conclusion. I just hope they will have enough LHDs to carry enough JSFs to meet any external threat they face. The LHDs need to not only carry AG munitions but also ASMs as well. Leave enough space on those babies for all the ordinance to sink an incoming fleet and AU will be allright.alexsa said:
I actually think it would be a good idea to buy a few VTOL versions of the JSF.
80 conventional take off versions and 20 Vertical takeoff versions. Cost wise would be the same, maintenance would be the same too.
We could then develop a large assualt ship that supports say 4 helicopters and 4 JSF's. Not only would it be a mobile base in war time but in joint conflicts it could be sent to war as Australia's only base for all of its operations.
Think about the Iraq wars, our small number of hornets just get in the way of the US aircraft and provide minimal fire power. They cant refuel from the US tankers either.
The only thing benificial that Australia provides are the SAS. These soldiers could be based on this assault ship, and get flown in for special operations, the VTOL JSF's would provide close air support to the helicopters similar to the US marines.
For emergencies like East Timor and the current Solomon Islands this mobile base could have JSF's flying all over the islands. Nothing shows that you mean business better than having aircraft flying at 1000kmh directly overhead.
It would allow us to conduct our own miniture falkland island style war, not that we have any territory to protect that is far away.
Equiped with a powerful radar and cruise missiles it would be an awesome asset.
The only problem with this though, is who would control the VTOL JSF's? The airforce, army of the navy? Really it could be any of these, having airforce, army and navy personel on the one ship would be interesting.
80 conventional take off versions and 20 Vertical takeoff versions. Cost wise would be the same, maintenance would be the same too.
We could then develop a large assualt ship that supports say 4 helicopters and 4 JSF's. Not only would it be a mobile base in war time but in joint conflicts it could be sent to war as Australia's only base for all of its operations.
Think about the Iraq wars, our small number of hornets just get in the way of the US aircraft and provide minimal fire power. They cant refuel from the US tankers either.
The only thing benificial that Australia provides are the SAS. These soldiers could be based on this assault ship, and get flown in for special operations, the VTOL JSF's would provide close air support to the helicopters similar to the US marines.
For emergencies like East Timor and the current Solomon Islands this mobile base could have JSF's flying all over the islands. Nothing shows that you mean business better than having aircraft flying at 1000kmh directly overhead.
It would allow us to conduct our own miniture falkland island style war, not that we have any territory to protect that is far away.
Equiped with a powerful radar and cruise missiles it would be an awesome asset.
The only problem with this though, is who would control the VTOL JSF's? The airforce, army of the navy? Really it could be any of these, having airforce, army and navy personel on the one ship would be interesting.
Firstly the VSTOL F-35B will cost more, probably to maintain also, and the value of carrying just 4 JSF's would be similar to the UK and its original 5 Sea Harrier compliment on the Invincible class carriers - provides the illusion of air power but that's about it...rjmaz1 said:
I agree in not closing the door in terms of future use of the LHDs but not at the expense of their primary purpose.
Ensuring the new AW Destroyers has suitable land attack capability would be a far better spend IMO.
I think Australia punches aboves its weight and with new equipment / capabilities on the horizon it should only improve.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The Spanish (Armaris) Strategic Projection Ship, which is one of the 2 competing designs for Australia's Amphibious Warfare (LPD) project is designed from inception to operate STOVL fighters, such as Harrier or F-35B as WELL as helicopters, vehicles, troops, medical facilities etc. As such it possesses both the space and facilities to operate both, including the necessary spare parts, ordnance etc.
This vessel also comes standard with a "ski-jump". Australia would have to "modify" the vessel NOT to have one. A ridiculous idea in MY opinion. Even if we don't operate STOVL aircraft ourselves, it would be useful to carry or assist other nations that do, if necessary, even only for "emergencies" or for short durations.
Details on Amaris's website show that 6 aircraft can operate from the flight deck and 12 aircraft in the hangar. If the light vehicle deck is also used up to 30 aircraft (including 20 JSF sized aircraft) could be carried, meaning that 10 CH-47 Chinook sized aircraft could still be carried IN THE HANGAR, even if the total load of aircraft would be carried.
Under these circumstances, it would a relatively simple matter for one of these vessels to carry 12-24 F-35 aircraft, and still carry up to 12 helo's, albeit with restrictions to the light vehicle carrying capacity, depending on how many vehicles you wished to carry.
These vessels also operate a tank deck, and allows the carriage of up to 41 main battle tanks or self propelled artillery vehicles.
Depending on mission requirements, one or both of these vessels could carry F-35's and STILL carry a significant amount of helo's, vehicles and landing craft. Irrespective of how many aircraft/vehicles/vessels are carried, each ship can carry over 1000 troops and has medical facilities with over 50 beds, plus ICU's, surgical/dental wards etc.
The French Mistral vessel, the other competing design, has far more limited capabilities, on paper. It can only carry 450 troops in "permanent" accomodation, though more can be carried for short durations (up to 900, I believe) no STOVL aircraft can be operated, and it has far less vehicle capacity.
This competition is a no-brainer in my opinion.
As to the F-35B question, it hasn't been decided yet. RAAF are still evaluating the options. If a small quantity of F-35B's are acquired, they will be operated by RAAF. The fleet air arm has long given up it's fixed wing component and I serioulsy doubt we'll ever see it back.
I think RAN would be so thrilled if this capability were to be sought, that it wouldn't care about the RAAF operating off it's vessels...
This vessel also comes standard with a "ski-jump". Australia would have to "modify" the vessel NOT to have one. A ridiculous idea in MY opinion. Even if we don't operate STOVL aircraft ourselves, it would be useful to carry or assist other nations that do, if necessary, even only for "emergencies" or for short durations.
Details on Amaris's website show that 6 aircraft can operate from the flight deck and 12 aircraft in the hangar. If the light vehicle deck is also used up to 30 aircraft (including 20 JSF sized aircraft) could be carried, meaning that 10 CH-47 Chinook sized aircraft could still be carried IN THE HANGAR, even if the total load of aircraft would be carried.
Under these circumstances, it would a relatively simple matter for one of these vessels to carry 12-24 F-35 aircraft, and still carry up to 12 helo's, albeit with restrictions to the light vehicle carrying capacity, depending on how many vehicles you wished to carry.
These vessels also operate a tank deck, and allows the carriage of up to 41 main battle tanks or self propelled artillery vehicles.
Depending on mission requirements, one or both of these vessels could carry F-35's and STILL carry a significant amount of helo's, vehicles and landing craft. Irrespective of how many aircraft/vehicles/vessels are carried, each ship can carry over 1000 troops and has medical facilities with over 50 beds, plus ICU's, surgical/dental wards etc.
The French Mistral vessel, the other competing design, has far more limited capabilities, on paper. It can only carry 450 troops in "permanent" accomodation, though more can be carried for short durations (up to 900, I believe) no STOVL aircraft can be operated, and it has far less vehicle capacity.
This competition is a no-brainer in my opinion.
As to the F-35B question, it hasn't been decided yet. RAAF are still evaluating the options. If a small quantity of F-35B's are acquired, they will be operated by RAAF. The fleet air arm has long given up it's fixed wing component and I serioulsy doubt we'll ever see it back.
I think RAN would be so thrilled if this capability were to be sought, that it wouldn't care about the RAAF operating off it's vessels...
Very interesting. I had thought the Spanish B.P.E. (LHD) was configured in ‘aircraft carrier’ mode as 20 AV8B / JSF and 6 medium or 4 Chinook helicopters. My Spanish is (sorry to say) virtually zero so in the amphibious role with 900 Marines, with support equipment, the understanding is it could deploy these troops and operate 20 JSF plus 10 Chinooks? If maximum fit allows for this and its support personnel I’m with AD on the Armaris bid over Mistral.
Two questions if anyone knows the answer then: 1) are the two hanger / storage decks both of similar capability in terms of height and facilities; and, 2) do the aircraft lifts provide sufficient access in terms of handling Chinooks etc – actually do their rotors fold?
Agreed that should the F-35B become an option I’m not sure the RAN would argue too much over who flies it.
Two questions if anyone knows the answer then: 1) are the two hanger / storage decks both of similar capability in terms of height and facilities; and, 2) do the aircraft lifts provide sufficient access in terms of handling Chinooks etc – actually do their rotors fold?
Agreed that should the F-35B become an option I’m not sure the RAN would argue too much over who flies it.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Here is the "google" translated Armaris webpage, listing the various configuration options for the SPS.
Google translation
As everyone can see it offers a very large degree of flexibility, particularly compared to the Mistral series, which is both significantly smaller and unable to really operate a STOVL aircraft type.
There is talk of acquiring a "lengthened" Mistral for RAN, which would closely match the SPS in size and capability (again, except for the STOVL capability), but this would require (I'd imagine) a fair amount of re-design.
It would also bring the cost much closer together I'd imagine...
Google translation
As everyone can see it offers a very large degree of flexibility, particularly compared to the Mistral series, which is both significantly smaller and unable to really operate a STOVL aircraft type.
There is talk of acquiring a "lengthened" Mistral for RAN, which would closely match the SPS in size and capability (again, except for the STOVL capability), but this would require (I'd imagine) a fair amount of re-design.
It would also bring the cost much closer together I'd imagine...
Last edited by a moderator:
Source Combat Fleets of the World
Here is the US Navy's Wasp class LHD statistics:
Displacement:41,133 tons full load
Dimensions:257.3 (237.14wl)x42.67 (32.31wl)x8.53
Air Group: Assault mode-30-32 CH-46 (or fewer CH-53), 6-8 AV-8B
Carrier mode- 20 AV-8B, 4-6 SH-60F
Helo deck:9 landing spots for CH-53
How in the world can a smaller Spanish Navarina or French Mistral design carry 20 F-35Bs and 20 NH-90s at the same time? DREAM ON!
As I have noted before, its either or, not both
The French Mistral statistics:
Displacement:21,500 tons full load
Dimensions:210(199wl)x32(28wl)x6.2
Air Group:20 NH-90s or Army Cougar helicopters
Helo deck:6 landing spots for Cougar helicopters
The Spanish Navarina LHD design statistics:
Displacement:27,000 tons
Dimensions:231x32x6
Air Group: 8 Harriers or 12 helicopters
Helo deck: landing spots for 4 CH-47, 6 NH-90, or 8 AB-212 helicopters
The hangar will accommodate 12 NH-90s or 8 Harriers
I suspect Combat Fleets of the World didn't have the latest information on the Spanish Navarina design.
Nevertheless, it can be assumed it will be difficult to place more than 20 NH-90s in its hangar.
As I said before, its either a helicopter carrier or an attack carrier, not both at the same time To attempt
to do both considerably reduces the number of helicopters, see Wasp class above.
Here is the US Navy's Wasp class LHD statistics:
Displacement:41,133 tons full load
Dimensions:257.3 (237.14wl)x42.67 (32.31wl)x8.53
Air Group: Assault mode-30-32 CH-46 (or fewer CH-53), 6-8 AV-8B
Carrier mode- 20 AV-8B, 4-6 SH-60F
Helo deck:9 landing spots for CH-53
How in the world can a smaller Spanish Navarina or French Mistral design carry 20 F-35Bs and 20 NH-90s at the same time? DREAM ON!
As I have noted before, its either or, not both
The French Mistral statistics:
Displacement:21,500 tons full load
Dimensions:210(199wl)x32(28wl)x6.2
Air Group:20 NH-90s or Army Cougar helicopters
Helo deck:6 landing spots for Cougar helicopters
The Spanish Navarina LHD design statistics:
Displacement:27,000 tons
Dimensions:231x32x6
Air Group: 8 Harriers or 12 helicopters
Helo deck: landing spots for 4 CH-47, 6 NH-90, or 8 AB-212 helicopters
The hangar will accommodate 12 NH-90s or 8 Harriers
I suspect Combat Fleets of the World didn't have the latest information on the Spanish Navarina design.
Nevertheless, it can be assumed it will be difficult to place more than 20 NH-90s in its hangar.
As I said before, its either a helicopter carrier or an attack carrier, not both at the same time To attempt
to do both considerably reduces the number of helicopters, see Wasp class above.
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Look for yourself ST. Don't worry about what someone else says about it's capability. Worry what Armaris says.Sea Toby said:
I never said it would carry 20 F-35's and 20 NH-90's at the same time. I said, it can carry 6 aircraft in landing spots on the deck, plus 12 in the hangar. That seems to be 18 aircraft, according to my basic math, of any aircraft of suitable configuration up to and including CH-47 sized helo's and F-35 sized aircraft at any one time.
In addition to this, it CAN carry up to 41 MBT's or 150 "light" vehicles in it's vehicle deck, WHILST carrying the aforementioned 18 aircraft.
IF the vehicle deck is used as an additional hangar, up to 30 aircraft can be hangared, using the normal aircraft hangar AND the vehicle deck as a secondary hangar, with the usual 6 still operated from the flight deck.
Tell me, how many vehicles can the Wasp class manage? At 40,000 tons, I'd imagine quite a few. If that space wasn't used for vehicles, but rather aircraft, how many more do you think it COULD carry, hypothetically speaking?
Any loadout's for these vessels will be entirely dependant on the mission. It is quite likely that RAAF will never acquire F-35B's and it certainly won't acquire AV-8B or any other Harrier's.
As such a helo load is more than likely the only aircraft it will ever carry in RAN service. The Spaniards however are quite intent on operating Harrier's from their ships and scale models around the place, and Armaris's own info, proves it.
Their website shows, if necessary that an SPS COULD carry up to 36 helo's/F-35B's per ship, however only at the total expense of any vehicle carrying capacity whatsoever. LCM and personnel carrying ability remain of course, unaffected by ANY vehicle/aircraft configurations.
contedicavour
New Member
Carrier : what is it worth
Having a carrier makes your navy climb world rankings, just as the one on this site... however a carrier is really worth all the billions of dollars or euros one spends to build it !
Any country with an independent foreign policy has to have the ability to deploy a large enough force to far aways areas on the planet, and LPDs or LPHs will never provide sufficient air cover to such a naval expeditionary force since a few Harriers or F-35s wouldn't be enough.
Just a reminder of a mission Australians probably remember... when the UN sent an expeditionary force to East Timor, what would have happened if some Indonesian Air Force SU-30s or F-16s had attacked the Australian and European ships with no air cover ? I doubt Australian F-18s could have intervened so far away from their bases.
A carrier would automatically reduce to 0 any such risks.
This is the logic that the Italian Navy has used to persuade our notoriously anti-military Parliament to build a larger aircraft carrier (Conte di Cavour) to complement our small carrier Garibaldi.
cheers
Having a carrier makes your navy climb world rankings, just as the one on this site... however a carrier is really worth all the billions of dollars or euros one spends to build it !
Any country with an independent foreign policy has to have the ability to deploy a large enough force to far aways areas on the planet, and LPDs or LPHs will never provide sufficient air cover to such a naval expeditionary force since a few Harriers or F-35s wouldn't be enough.
Just a reminder of a mission Australians probably remember... when the UN sent an expeditionary force to East Timor, what would have happened if some Indonesian Air Force SU-30s or F-16s had attacked the Australian and European ships with no air cover ? I doubt Australian F-18s could have intervened so far away from their bases.
A carrier would automatically reduce to 0 any such risks.
This is the logic that the Italian Navy has used to persuade our notoriously anti-military Parliament to build a larger aircraft carrier (Conte di Cavour) to complement our small carrier Garibaldi.
cheers
The Navarina Spanish LHD graphics as a carrier:
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/HarrierNH-90 config.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/Harrier only config.jpg
In either case, both the loading deck in front of the well dock and the well dock will have to be used for missile and bomb storage. Otherwise why bother to send the aircraft?
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/HarrierNH-90 config.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/Harrier only config.jpg
In either case, both the loading deck in front of the well dock and the well dock will have to be used for missile and bomb storage. Otherwise why bother to send the aircraft?
Last edited: