Does Australia need an aircraft carrier?

[Sea Toby]

The Navarina Spanish LHD graphics in a sealift role only:

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/hangar ltransport ight load.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/hangar transport heavy load.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/hangar humanitarian load.jpg

In all three of these roles no aircraft of any kind is carried.

 

[Sea Toby]

The Navarina Spanish LHD design graphics in an amphibious load:

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/hangar amphib light load.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/hangar amphib heavy load.jpg

In a heavy load no aircraft is carried, in a light load helicopters can be carried in the hangar.

 

[Sea Toby]

I'm getting the impression some of you think there are seven hangar decks on the Spanish LHD, but as the links above show, there is only one hangar deck configured seven different ways.

Yes there is a well dock below the hangar deck, its used to store the LCMs. Yes, there is a loading area or vehicle deck in front of the well dock, some vehicles can be stowed there. But if you are using this LHD as a carrier, where do you think the bombs and missiles will be stored?

While the Aramis hangar deck is smaller than the Spanish Navarina hangar deck, 1800 m2 versus 3000 m2, its large enough to carry 16 NH-90 helicopters.

Is Australia intrested in placing more helicopter assets onboard?

Either ship will fulfill Australia's amphibious requirements. While the Spanish ship is larger, is its larger size necessary when Australia is building two instead of one ship?

 

[Magoo]

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.

The Indons didn't have Su-30s when Timor happened, and even if they did, all they would have been able to do is shake their fists at our ships as they flew past! The F-16s are also generally considered an inconsequential force. I would have been more concerned with the Indon A-4s and F-5s in that scenario.

However, just in case, the RAAF had ELINT AP-3Cs and Recce F-111s in the air over and around Timor during the critical stages (which Indonesia reportedly complained about through diplomatic channels), and had F/A-18s on 'alert 5' with red ones at Tindal for most of that campaign, and some sources suggest US tanker aircraft were also on hand to support them if required. Had the Indons moved their fighters up to a position where they could have jumped off to reach the Timor force, the Hornets could have been in the air and over Timor within an hour.

Additionally, I can only speculate as to what assets of the US intel infrastructure were also called upon during this time, but I'll wager we knew what the Indons and the TNI-AU were up to before most of the Indons did!

The Timor example as a case for Australia putting fighters on an LHD is a weak one at best. In fact, I would suggest that having JSFs or Harriers on an LHD in that scenario may have in fact inflamed the situation rather than quelled it.

Magoo

 

[Mercenary]

No way, not enough funding nor manpower to make it worthwhile. Besides Australia is not really a warmongering nation but having an Aircraft Carrier might provide a good excuse to become one. That inevitable we have - gotta use it would come into play.

I'd much rather see the RAN license build a Nuclear powered Attack Submarine for both long range strike with Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles and Special Forces insertion. Or at the very least double the number of COLLIN's class Attack Subs equipped with very latest AIP and tube launched Cruise Missiles. But a Nuclear Attack Submarine would be the best combined with an AEGIS multi-role/helo' equipped Destroyer class of three.

The RAAF was offered surplus B-1 Lancer Strategic Bombers to replace their F-111's but declined. The latter do have their problems, but it was an interesting option and if those could be fixed without the Military going broke in the process, then the B-1B Lancer would make a helluve' Long Range Strike asset at less money than an Aircraft Carrier and all it's necessary Escorts and Replenishment Vessels and Manpower and Fuel, etc, etc.

Aircraft Carriers are worthless unless they are of sufficient size (Italy's, Spain's, Thailand's, the U.K. and India's) are all barely adequate as far as overall capabilities. All require almost their entire fixed-wing Fighters to provide Fleet Air Defense which leaves only a handfull (3-or-4) of Strike Fighters for Anti-Ship and Land Attack missions and if any aircraft are lost either to enemy action or malfunctions/accidents the entire fixed-wing Combat Aircraft Inventory is in jeopardy and so is the Carrier and the mission at hand.

The only way to make it worthwhile is procure an Aircraft Carrier of at least 60,000 tons displacement or at least 850-long to carry a minimum of 40-fixed wing combat Fighters, anything less is a waste of resources. Preferrably 80 aircraft of all types would be the total number to look for in new Aircraft Carriers.

What about a squadron of 24 F-15E Strike Eagles anyone?

The RAAF is already procuring 4 (options for 3 more) EC-737 Wedgetail AEW aircraft plus at least 4 A-310 MRTT Air-Refueling-Air Tankers. Seven and seven would be the ideal along with two dozen Strike Eagles would provide a much more flexiable and survivable asset than an horrendously expensive Aircraft Carrier.

 

[contedicavour]

Appropriate size of aircraft carrier

Dear Mercenary, I beg to differ on this point

27,000-t , 240-metre long carriers can be very useful for Navies that cannot afford USN-sized CVNs.
Once you have 3 AEW helicopters patrolling around (such as the British-Italian EH-101 AEW) and 15 Harrier Plus fighters hanging around with Amraam and Harpoons beneath their wings, there aren't many enemy air forces that would be willing to attack such a ship. Especially if it has a couple of advanged AEGIS-type DDGs (or as the French-Italian Horizon) ready to start shooting down approaching enemy fighters as soon as they are 100-km away.
So no need to call upon land-based air force fighters to provide additional cover. Unless of course we're talking of crazy missions such as confronting mainland China with a 27,000 ton carrier alone

One last remark, this time on SSNs. Most missions are "wave the flag", i.e. send a big visible ship close to a trouble spot to calm things down. Just as the USN has done several times to protect Taiwan, for example. Having SSNs capable of launching Tomahawk is for me besides the point. Unless you really plan on launching Cruise missiles against land targets, the SSN isn't useful for "wave the flag" missions. It would even be risky to let it be known to the potential enemy where your SSN is.
Your SSNs may block any manoeuvres from the enemy's Navy (as in the Falklands 1982 war), but what about the enemy's armies and air forces, especially if the planes are well dispersed and hidden ? There you go, you need an aircraft carrier, the largest your navy can afford, to make the point.

cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

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

A few points:

1. Australia had F/A-18's on standby to cover any air threat that emerged at the time.

2. Timor is close enough for RAAF F/A-18's to provide air cover, operating from mainland Australia.

3. Indonesia did not possess the SU-27/30 fighters back then. In any case they are still not armed with ANY weapons, even today.

4. Indonesian Air force does not, AFAIK, operate anti-ship missile systems capable of being deployed by air. As such even the F-16's would have been limited to conducting bombing attacks using "dumb" munitions.

5. Indonesia's Air force (including F-16's, F-5's and Hawk 200's) have unbelievably low readiness rates. Most are non-operational for large periods of time, and in any event lack any sort of force multiplier effect, such as AWACS, A2A refuellers etc.

6. Even if operational, the Indonesian air force, would have been hard pressed to repel RAAF F-111 strikes on Indonesian military bases, in retaliation.

As you can probably see, Indonesian air attacks, were not a serious threat.

Cheers mate.

 

[gf0012-aust]

One last remark, this time on SSNs. Most missions are "wave the flag", i.e. send a big visible ship close to a trouble spot to calm things down. Just as the USN has done several times to protect Taiwan, for example. Having SSNs capable of launching Tomahawk is for me besides the point. Unless you really plan on launching Cruise missiles against land targets, the SSN isn't useful for "wave the flag" missions. It would even be risky to let it be known to the potential enemy where your SSN is.
Your SSNs may block any manoeuvres from the enemy's Navy (as in the Falklands 1982 war), but what about the enemy's armies and air forces, especially if the planes are well dispersed and hidden ? There you go, you need an aircraft carrier, the largest your navy can afford, to make the point.

cheers

Agree, you don't use subs for flag waving. You use large capital ships and their escorts as a latent visible threat.

Subs are for latent malevolence. You never put them on display as you want the enemy to wonder where they are and to expend effort either finding them or protecting critical skimmer assets. Either way subs have a disproportionate effect on an OPFOR that visibility cannot provide.

 

[Big-E]

Agree, you don't use subs for flag waving. You use large capital ships and their escorts as a latent visible threat.

Subs are for latent malevolence. You never put them on display as you want the enemy to wonder where they are and to expend effort either finding them or protecting critical skimmer assets. Either way subs have a disproportionate effect on an OPFOR that visibility cannot provide.

If your waving the flag in unfriendly waters, the CBG will never be close enough to land to be seen anyway.

 

[gf0012-aust]

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 !

Conversely it can become a parasite on your military budget. Numerous nations have paid for the folly of assuming that assets of status = military capability. That is just not so.

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.

There are very few nations that have a blue water autonomous expeditionary capability. In fact, in real terms its the US, UK and France. Russia is a distant 4th.

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.

• Aust was watching indonesian air space in real time, that included JORN, DIGO assets, various organic ISR assets + regional ISR support.
• The Indon F-16's were spilt up into disparate bases. They weren't even together as a fighting force
• F-111's were at orange alert status in nth western australia. ie if Indonesia has escalated events they were geared to go and send a message in the north west.
• Hornets were also tooled up on a similar status. Any change on TNI F-16 positioning or status would have resulted in an immediate posture shift.

The Indons were never an aviation threat - and they were never a naval threat as they were contained by the subs.

A carrier would automatically reduce to 0 any such risks.

Its a blue water solution that was not needed. Any conflict would have been green water and would have been dealt with very very quickly. In a naval sense, the sub would have been and was far more effective. The Indonesians knew that subs were in theatre - and thats why they never moved their major skimmers.

At an aviation level - they would not have had regional superiority as the Hornets and F-111's were an overmatch. What aircraft that weren't dealt with in the air would have struggled to find an intact airbase to return to.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If your waving the flag in unfriendly waters, the CBG will never be close enough to land to be seen anyway.

I didn't mean literal visibility - I was referring to visible political statements of intent.

No CSF is going to travel within range of land based air prior to decapitation - thats just tempting fate.

The context was as a vehicle of political committment to prosecute with force.

 

[SABRE]

Agree, you don't use subs for flag waving. You use large capital ships and their escorts as a latent visible threat.

Subs are for latent malevolence. You never put them on display as you want the enemy to wonder where they are and to expend effort either finding them or protecting critical skimmer assets. Either way subs have a disproportionate effect on an OPFOR that visibility cannot provide.

Just woundering gf, can subs sink an aircraft carrier? If it can, than wouldnt it be more sensible for countries not seeking global domination, yet maintaining effective and large military (in this case navy) to go for more subs instead of Carriers. Lets count Australia here. you might ve looking for global influence but not global domination.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just woundering gf, can subs sink an aircraft carrier? If it can, than wouldnt it be more sensible for countries not seeking global domination, yet maintaining effective and large military (in this case navy) to go for more subs instead of Carriers. Lets count Australia here. you might ve looking for global influence but not global domination.

No ship is exempt from risk - so any Carrier can be sunk if the circumstances are right etc.... Generally though its going to be extremely difficult.

personally speaking, in an australian sense, I would get more subs everytime - rather than invest in a carrier. our region is not volatile in a "force majeur" sense where conflict could become navy set againts navy in a coral sea type stoush.

a carrier just doesn't fit our defence requirements - and their capability is far from convincing as a platform of prosecution "lift".

 

[contedicavour]

... Australia did have an aircraft carrier ?

When visiting some time ago Australia, I did see in a Navy museum in Sydney that Australia had aircraft carriers, former British escort carriers such as the ones at the time handed over to the Netherlands, France, Brazil, and Argentina.
True, at the time costs weren't the same.
However, if I recall correctly, the carrier was sent to some useful duties such as leading the Australian contingent to the Vietnamese theater in the '60s and '70s.
The choice to delete the carrier with no replacement was most probably due to budget issues.
What has changed so much as to justify such a change of priorities ? After all Australia is a country depending and thriving on open and international trade well beyond the areas of its neighbors.

cheers

 

[pepsi]

Surely the more sensible approach for the RAN, considering recruitment numbers and the need to keep other areas of the RAN at adequate strength (frigates, subs etc), a light carrier/LHD type thing would be more appropriate

With that in mind, i think the decision for 2 LHD's is the most sensible option, especially if they go for the Spanish design (which i hope they will) as it seems the most likely to be operating aircraft and therefore more easily put into a light carrier type role if required.

Because of the region Australia is in, i think smaller LHD's would benefit us a lot more than a carrier would, i came to that conclusion from comparing the number of times we may need to provide air cover to naval and land assets to the extent that a large carrier would be needed, to the amount of times we have needed to simply move troops/aslavs and supplies to areas that required them.

From that, i could only think of East Timor as a situation that may have warranted a large carrier, however, due to the relatively small area involved from Australia's north to East Timor and all of Indonesia, land based RAAF jets were within range (as discusses earlier in this thread).. While taking into consideration the amount of times we could have used an LHD i came up with quite a few, including East Timor, but also the Solomon Islands (previously and recently if the riots had continued), Indonesia during the tsunami aid, etc etc

As far as the future is concerned, and strengthening Indian and Chinese Navies (as discussed earlier), i can't really comment i don't know enough about each countries navy or possible desire to infringe upon our EEZ, but as others said, i think more subs would go a lot further to not only to deterring any such actions, but to taking care of those actions should they occur.

I think Australia is in quite a unique situation, as it has a huge coastline and area/region to patrol and look after, while constrained by a small population and as a result can't really acquire as many naval assets as it might require, (NZ is in a similar situation i think), so i'd agree that more subs would be a better choice than a large carrier, but i also think 2 LHD's is not enough, why not 3 or 4, (isn't 3 better for rotation purposes, and then 1 could also be used in a more, but not totally, dedicated light carrier role?)

Sorry for the long post, lol

 

[mark22w]

The choice to delete the carrier with no replacement was most probably due to budget issues.

I believe if it hadn't been for the Falklands conflict HMS Invincible might well have been sold as intended to Australia, replacing HMAS Melbourne in the light aircraft carrier role. Does anyone know what air group was intended at the time?

Whereas the RN benefited from the Falklands fallout with retention of 3 carriers, amphibs etc Australia lost its replacement carrier.

 

[harryriedl]

at the time would aus been able buy or bulid another inseted of of binning the idea of a pocket carrier

would aus still been able to buy a carrier in 1982

 

[KAPITAIN]

My personaly belief is that the aussie navy should have at least two invincible size air craft cruisers, ok the threat is not realy that far out but australia may some day become involved in a war where her planes can no longer support the ships.

Also there is a limitation to ground air craft, 1) they are not a permanent with the fleet 2) they will have low fuel if they have to travel far so they cant stay for long 3) with extra fuel pods they wont be able to carry as many weapons.

So theres a strong limit to ground air craft.

 

[Big-E]

Also there is a limitation to ground air craft, 1) they are not a permanent with the fleet 2) they will have low fuel if they have to travel far so they cant stay for long 3) with extra fuel pods they wont be able to carry as many weapons.

So theres a strong limit to ground air craft.

Not to mention sortie rates.

 

[KAPITAIN]

It would realy suite the australian navy to have a small air craft carrier like the invincible class just to be on the safe side, i mean look at i think its thialand im not sure but they have a carrier its small but it does what they want it to do.

The collins is more than acceptable submarine for the missions it carrys out, the perrys will do for the time being and dont forget theres new ships incoming also.