Does Australia need an aircraft carrier?

[Aussie Digger]

Gday All
Long time lurker, first time poster. Noting that most carier forces only carry approximately half their air wing in the hanger, would it be possible for the respective LHD designs to still carry thier designed 12 helos in the hanger while maintaining 6-8 F35B parked on the deck?
I look forward to any comments.
Cheers

The Navantia design is certainly designed to carry 6x Harrier/JSF aircraft on the flight deck in ADDITION to it's helo load, so there is no real reason WHY the ADF couldn't operate a few JSF's off them, at no detriment to it's usual LHD duties.

Greater numbers of helo's or STOVL fighters could also be carried with concessions made in other areas of it's capability, however I think it unlikely that JSF's WOULD be carried on a regular basis but a capability TO carry them if necessary would greatly enhance RAN and overall ADF capability.

The main issue will be funding and of course the political/strategic landscape. It seems far more likely that a JSF/LHD combo would be operated if the Liberals and more specifically John Howard were to stay in power for longer...

 

[contedicavour]

The Navantia design is certainly designed to carry 6x Harrier/JSF aircraft on the flight deck in ADDITION to it's helo load, so there is no real reason WHY the ADF couldn't operate a few JSF's off them, at no detriment to it's usual LHD duties.

Greater numbers of helo's or STOVL fighters could also be carried with concessions made in other areas of it's capability, however I think it unlikely that JSF's WOULD be carried on a regular basis but a capability TO carry them if necessary would greatly enhance RAN and overall ADF capability.

The main issue will be funding and of course the political/strategic landscape. It seems far more likely that a JSF/LHD combo would be operated if the Liberals and more specifically John Howard were to stay in power for longer...

Make sure the procurement for the JSF/LHD combo is done before the next elections, just in case Once the contract is signed it is harder for Labor governments to renege. At least this worked in Italy once or twice

cheers

 

[buschy]

With all the aircraft carriers that will be roaming the South Pacific should AU invest in a small carrier for V-TOL F-35s?

id be interested to know why we need one.

 

[Aussie Digger]

id be interested to know why we need one.

I don't think we need a dedicated carrier but the ability to deploy STOVL F-35B's from our LHD's could provide useful air defence and strike capabilities for any RAN taskforces if necessary.

I don't envisage the LHD's being used as carriers on a regular basis, but obviously a training capability at least would be required in order to be able to "ramp up" for any contingencies that may occur.

The Navantia vessel is being designed from the outset to maintain a small STOVL fighter complement in addition to it's amphibious and lift capabilities. Hence I think we should take advantage of this opportunity. Or if necessary carry greater numbers of either helo's or STOVL fighters as the strategic circumstances dictate...

"Light carriers" have proven of great utility to those who operate them (particularly) Britain and Italy. Australia could easily enjoy the benefits as well.

 

[Sea Toby]

From recent deployments of Australian troops, I don't see the need for the LHD to carry Harriers or F-35Bs. What I do see is a need for more sealift of Australian forces. Any of the two designs under consideration will do sealift better than what Australian forces have today.

These ships are adapable for being used as a light carrier or as a LHD. Whether the Australian government will purchase F-35Bs or Harriers is open to discussion. If the Australians don't acquire such aircraft, the point is moot whether Australia needs a carrier.

 

[Markus40]

Im interested to see this discussion in the direction its going as i think there are a couple of factors that seem to be overlooked here.

First, Australia is becoming a world power in this region of the world and along with the United States is developing technologies that will require a certain amount of forward thinking in the military world we will live in tomorrow. One very good example is the development of the 3 Air Defence cruisers that Australia will build in the coming years. Having read the capabaility of these warships they will have some Anti Ballistic Missile capability that will protect Australia from Rogue countries like N Korea and Iran. Not to mention China, if the political nature over Taiwan got worse.

The one element in the forward deployment of Australian forces is to be able to project an effective and mobile air platform along with a heavy logistics element to be able to quickly suppress both air and ground and land troops in the designated areas. This is to do a 3 in 1 approach by using the LHD as that platform and giving both air and land support to the Australian forces. The US Navy have used this tactic since the second world war and currently uses its assets in the Gulf region to date. Its extremely handy when calling on a point to point air strike when Land based aircraft from the host country is beyond reach. From the statistics i understand that an LHD will be able to carry 1600-2000 marines and their equipment and 42 aircraft (either choppers or F-35s mix and their spares and weopons.

Secondly, the LHD can be supported like a mini carrier battle group with logistics support ships and warships and subs giving full air and sea cover to the LHD. Its my opinion that in the years to come with an increase in military survelliance from China, Indonesia and with Australias allies including ourselves that we will need to attend to a air element that is able to be forward projected as a means of security for this part of the world. The LHD makes perfect sense and if supported by Tennex both here and in Australia then we are giving back to the NZ and Australian economy the expertise in warship building like we are doing now.

I don't think we need a dedicated carrier but the ability to deploy STOVL F-35B's from our LHD's could provide useful air defence and strike capabilities for any RAN taskforces if necessary.

I don't envisage the LHD's being used as carriers on a regular basis, but obviously a training capability at least would be required in order to be able to "ramp up" for any contingencies that may occur.

The Navantia vessel is being designed from the outset to maintain a small STOVL fighter complement in addition to it's amphibious and lift capabilities. Hence I think we should take advantage of this opportunity. Or if necessary carry greater numbers of either helo's or STOVL fighters as the strategic circumstances dictate...

"Light carriers" have proven of great utility to those who operate them (particularly) Britain and Italy. Australia could easily enjoy the benefits as well.

 

[Pusser01]

Just to add a little bit more to the debate. IF Australia did purchase a squadron of approx 20 F35B for occaisional deployment aboard the LHD's, would their main role be CAS eg US Marine Harriers, or would they be fleet defence eg ex RN Sea Harriers? If primarily used in the air defence role, should the RAN consider an AEW platform? A possible platform could be the MRH90 fitted with an updated system similar to that onboard the RN Seakings or Italian Navy EH101's.
Opinions welcomed.

 

[Supe]

I reckon RAN will be looking at flying UCAV's off LHD's rather than JSF's. UCAV's continue to evolve and mature - they will be tremendous assets if current U.S deployment of them is anything to go by.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Im interested to see this discussion in the direction its going as i think there are a couple of factors that seem to be overlooked here.

First, Australia is becoming a world power in this region of the world and along with the United States is developing technologies that will require a certain amount of forward thinking in the military world we will live in tomorrow. One very good example is the development of the 3 Air Defence cruisers that Australia will build in the coming years. Having read the capabaility of these warships they will have some Anti Ballistic Missile capability that will protect Australia from Rogue countries like N Korea and Iran. Not to mention China, if the political nature over Taiwan got worse.

The one element in the forward deployment of Australian forces is to be able to project an effective and mobile air platform along with a heavy logistics element to be able to quickly suppress both air and ground and land troops in the designated areas. This is to do a 3 in 1 approach by using the LHD as that platform and giving both air and land support to the Australian forces. The US Navy have used this tactic since the second world war and currently uses its assets in the Gulf region to date. Its extremely handy when calling on a point to point air strike when Land based aircraft from the host country is beyond reach. From the statistics i understand that an LHD will be able to carry 1600-2000 marines and their equipment and 42 aircraft (either choppers or F-35s mix and their spares and weopons.

Secondly, the LHD can be supported like a mini carrier battle group with logistics support ships and warships and subs giving full air and sea cover to the LHD. Its my opinion that in the years to come with an increase in military survelliance from China, Indonesia and with Australias allies including ourselves that we will need to attend to a air element that is able to be forward projected as a means of security for this part of the world. The LHD makes perfect sense and if supported by Tennex both here and in Australia then we are giving back to the NZ and Australian economy the expertise in warship building like we are doing now.

I guess the definition of carrier needs to be looked at, if you look at the French, British (future) and American navies we are talking dedicated aircraft carriers, capable of embarking between 40 & 90 aircraft. Other nations have the smaller STOVL designs which carry around 20, with many of the STOVL designs playing a role as secondary Amphibs.

The USN operates large LPHs, such as the Tarawa and Wasp, that are primarily Amphibs with a secondary sea control capability. As a sea control ship I believe the Wasp class can carry 20 harriers.

Of the LPH designs that Australia is looking at only the Spanish design has a STOVL capability. The issue as I see it is that while I am sure that the design can carry a small amount of STOVL aircraft the main role would still be Amphib assault.

The French design can carry 16 Helos, the Spanish I believe in a Amphib role can carry 12 in the hanger and 6 on deck (either Helo or STOVOL), so you look at 18, so an air group would look like this:
· 9-10 NH90s to generate 1 coy lift
· 4-5 Tigers for recon/fire support
· 3-4 LUHs for liaison/medi vac

So that is basically your air group.

Now IMO this is how a carrier would look.

If memory serves me right the RN believes that it requires a force of 8 Harriers to maintain a CAP over the carrier 24/7, with 1-2 harriers sitting on deck ready to launch and back up the CAP. So to conduct strike operations you would need another squadron of 8. Added to this would be a AEW force of 3-4, plus an ASW force of 6 (?) and another 1 or 2 for SAR, to round out your ideal minimum air group so 16 STOVL and 10-12 Helos.

To support an RAN Amphib task force at least two carriers would be needed. The RAN would need a support ship per carrier as the amount of munitions and fuel a carrier needs can not be carried by the carrier (at least I know the USN supports such ships and I believe that the RN will have two ships to support future carrier under the MARS project).

So a future RAN task force with carriers would look like this:
· 1 Carrier
· 1 LPH
· 1 Logistics Ship (? can’t remember what the third ship to be bought with the LPhs is)
· 1 Large Support ship
· 1 Destroyer
· 2 ANZAC
· 1-2 Collins

So can Australia fund 4 more ships and enough aircraft for at least one airgroup (two would be a very large ask)?

IMO no it can’t, off the top of my head the ADF would be looking at a minimum of AUS$10b to get this force off the ground and an extra 1200+ personnel to crew and support it (that does not include airgroup).

Feedback/Opinions?

 

[Sea Toby]

As I have posted before, there is a limited amount of space. Any space given to F-35Bs is space taken away from helicopters, tanks, and other army vehicles. Australia is buying the LHDs because they can transport 1000 men and their equipment, a LPD would only transport about 500 men and their equipment. The quickest route to losing sealift capability is to place F-35Bs onboard.

The idea that Australia can place F-35Bs onboard and not lose any army sealift is false.

 

[Big-E]

But adding a few F-35Bs would double the effectiveness of those 500 men making them the equivalent of a thousand. JSF is the biggest force multiplyer your gonna get off of a LHP.

 

[knightrider4]

Carrier

Hi everyone I think that the assets required to protect and support a small carrier with negligable capability is simply a waste of time and precious resources. I think small carriers are a complete waste of time lets use the LHD's as troop carriers and leave carrier ops to those who can afford the capability and the support craft to make it a succsess.

 

[Big-E]

Hi everyone I think that the assets required to protect and support a small carrier with negligable capability is simply a waste of time and precious resources. I think small carriers are a complete waste of time lets use the LHD's as troop carriers and leave carrier ops to those who can afford the capability and the support craft to make it a succsess.

... and what are you going to do when you need CAS?

 

[RubiconNZ]

Who You gonna call?

... and what are you going to do when you need CAS?

Call Uncle Sam

 

[Aussie Digger]

I guess the definition of carrier needs to be looked at, if you look at the French, British (future) and American navies we are talking dedicated aircraft carriers, capable of embarking between 40 & 90 aircraft. Other nations have the smaller STOVL designs which carry around 20, with many of the STOVL designs playing a role as secondary Amphibs.

The USN operates large LPHs, such as the Tarawa and Wasp, that are primarily Amphibs with a secondary sea control capability. As a sea control ship I believe the Wasp class can carry 20 harriers.

Of the LPH designs that Australia is looking at only the Spanish design has a STOVL capability. The issue as I see it is that while I am sure that the design can carry a small amount of STOVL aircraft the main role would still be Amphib assault.

The French design can carry 16 Helos, the Spanish I believe in a Amphib role can carry 12 in the hanger and 6 on deck (either Helo or STOVOL), so you look at 18, so an air group would look like this:
· 9-10 NH90s to generate 1 coy lift
· 4-5 Tigers for recon/fire support
· 3-4 LUHs for liaison/medi vac

So that is basically your air group.

Now IMO this is how a carrier would look.

If memory serves me right the RN believes that it requires a force of 8 Harriers to maintain a CAP over the carrier 24/7, with 1-2 harriers sitting on deck ready to launch and back up the CAP. So to conduct strike operations you would need another squadron of 8. Added to this would be a AEW force of 3-4, plus an ASW force of 6 (?) and another 1 or 2 for SAR, to round out your ideal minimum air group so 16 STOVL and 10-12 Helos.

To support an RAN Amphib task force at least two carriers would be needed. The RAN would need a support ship per carrier as the amount of munitions and fuel a carrier needs can not be carried by the carrier (at least I know the USN supports such ships and I believe that the RN will have two ships to support future carrier under the MARS project).

So a future RAN task force with carriers would look like this:
· 1 Carrier
· 1 LPH
· 1 Logistics Ship (? can’t remember what the third ship to be bought with the LPhs is)
· 1 Large Support ship
· 1 Destroyer
· 2 ANZAC
· 1-2 Collins

So can Australia fund 4 more ships and enough aircraft for at least one airgroup (two would be a very large ask)?

IMO no it can’t, off the top of my head the ADF would be looking at a minimum of AUS$10b to get this force off the ground and an extra 1200+ personnel to crew and support it (that does not include airgroup).

Feedback/Opinions?

I think you guys need to check the statistics on the Navantia LHD. For starters it CAN carry up to 30 aircraft in it's hangar, plus 6 on the flight deck depending on configuration of the vessel WITHOUT affecting either it's troop carrying capacity OR fuel/munitions capability.

It operates a dedicated below decks hangar, a light vehicle garage AND a tank deck. Without the light vehicle garage OR tank deck used to provide additional air capacity the vessel CAN operate 12x CH-47D sized helo's OR JSF/AV-8B sized aircraft in it's normal hangar PLUS 6 more aircraft (JSF/AV-8B or up to CH-47D sized helo's) from the flight deck.

A more useful configuration includes: 10x JSF/AV-8B aircraft and up to 12x CH-47D sized helo's IN the hangar and the normal 6x aircraft on the flight deck. There is NO reason why a mix of helo's and fixed wing aircraft can't be carried by this vessel. Even this configuration STILL leaves the tank deck unused as well as the troop carrying capacity unaffected.

In addition to which, significant quantities of fuel, spare parts etc are obviously carried by the vessel. What are the helo's going to use when they operate from it?

Go to the manufacturers website and look at the capabilities and configurations yourselves, it's right here:

Google Translated

The LHD's deployed to any theatre with ANY sort of threat ARE going to be escorted by surface combatants AND an underway replenishment vessel/fleet oiler. Talk of additional ones necessary is ridiculous in my view.

Look at major RAN deployments in the past. Kanimbla and Manoora are deployed like this. There's NO WAY an LHD with the importance it will have will go ANYWHERE even slightly dangerous un-escorted.

I've said it before, and I'll continue to. A "light carrier" capability is emminently possibe with the Navantia design and this is EXACTLY how Spain intends to use the vessel herself.

There is not one reason WHY Australia could not operate such a capability.

I concede it will not match the capability of a USN Super Carrier, the French CDG, or even the planned British/French CVF's.

I concede that operating a significant airwing aboard the LHD will affect it's amphibious capacity.

I do not concede that it is not worthwhile doing so. Some ABILITY to provide sea based air power for deployed Australian forces, is surely better than none, and I emphasis AGAIN, the flexibility to do so IF NECESSARY is a very worthwhile proposition. The vessel is designed to operate a small complement of fighter aircraft on a permanent basis anyway, certainly enough for the ADF to maintain a sea based capability, that could be expanded if necessary.

I do NOT advocate limiting our Amphibious capability, UNLESS there is an identified need for greater "at sea" airpower.

The only real issues are funding, to acquire the more expensive STOVL version of JSF and the actual selection of the Navantia design itself. If the French design is chosen, it will obviously rule this entire discussion, moot.

 

[Big-E]

The only real issues are funding, to acquire the more expensive STOVL version of JSF and the actual selection of the Navantia design itself. If the French design is chosen, it will obviously rule this entire discussion, moot.

I also think it's a matter of urgency. How fast does AU need her new LHDs? If she needs them soon then she has no choice but to go with Armaris and her lesser capabilities b/c she is further along in development. If she has some patience and is willing to spend a few more bucks can acquire the incredible capacity and projection ability the Navantia can provide. The best thing about Navantia is if AU only needs the transport reqs of Armaris she can get a twofer... LHD and light carrier in one ship.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I think you guys need to check the statistics on the Navantia LHD. For starters it CAN carry up to 30 aircraft in it's hangar, plus 6 on the flight deck depending on configuration of the vessel WITHOUT affecting either it's troop carrying capacity OR fuel/munitions capability.

It operates a dedicated below decks hangar, a light vehicle garage AND a tank deck. Without the light vehicle garage OR tank deck used to provide additional air capacity the vessel CAN operate 12x CH-47D sized helo's OR JSF/AV-8B sized aircraft in it's normal hangar PLUS 6 more aircraft (JSF/AV-8B or up to CH-47D sized helo's) from the flight deck.

A more useful configuration includes: 10x JSF/AV-8B aircraft and up to 12x CH-47D sized helo's IN the hangar and the normal 6x aircraft on the flight deck. There is NO reason why a mix of helo's and fixed wing aircraft can't be carried by this vessel. Even this configuration STILL leaves the tank deck unused as well as the troop carrying capacity unaffected.

In addition to which, significant quantities of fuel, spare parts etc are obviously carried by the vessel. What are the helo's going to use when they operate from it?

Go to the manufacturers website and look at the capabilities and configurations yourselves, it's right here:

Google Translated

The LHD's deployed to any theatre with ANY sort of threat ARE going to be escorted by surface combatants AND an underway replenishment vessel/fleet oiler. Talk of additional ones necessary is ridiculous in my view.

Look at major RAN deployments in the past. Kanimbla and Manoora are deployed like this. There's NO WAY an LHD with the importance it will have will go ANYWHERE even slightly dangerous un-escorted.

I've said it before, and I'll continue to. A "light carrier" capability is emminently possibe with the Navantia design and this is EXACTLY how Spain intends to use the vessel herself.

There is not one reason WHY Australia could not operate such a capability.

I concede it will not match the capability of a USN Super Carrier, the French CDG, or even the planned British/French CVF's.

I concede that operating a significant airwing aboard the LHD will affect it's amphibious capacity.

I do not concede that it is not worthwhile doing so. Some ABILITY to provide sea based air power for deployed Australian forces, is surely better than none, and I emphasis AGAIN, the flexibility to do so IF NECESSARY is a very worthwhile proposition. The vessel is designed to operate a small complement of fighter aircraft on a permanent basis anyway, certainly enough for the ADF to maintain a sea based capability, that could be expanded if necessary.

I do NOT advocate limiting our Amphibious capability, UNLESS there is an identified need for greater "at sea" airpower.

The only real issues are funding, to acquire the more expensive STOVL version of JSF and the actual selection of the Navantia design itself. If the French design is chosen, it will obviously rule this entire discussion, moot.

Just to clarify where I am coming from, I agree with AD the Navantia design is obviously designed for Amphib and Sea Control and will give the RAN an eminently practical design for the RAN (if it goes for that design). But IMO while a limited number of STOVLs can be carried for CAS strike missions, the ability to carry a meaningful number of STOVLs will have an effect on Amphib operations. So the ability to provide CAP, with CAS is limited.

As a discussion point an option would be to buy three ships, to allow for one STOVL and one Amphib., while one is in maintainence etc…or two Amphibs with 12 STOVLs between them etc..

For the base crew of 240 plus running costs. Flight crews would be RAAF, Army & RAN (very UK joint forces) so no extra costs, but no dedicated ship board permanent training, if that is an issue at all.

Interested in opinion.

 

[Big-E]

As a discussion point an option would be to buy three ships, to allow for one STOVL and one Amphib., while one is in maintainence etc…or two Amphibs with 12 STOVLs between them etc..

Interested in opinion.

Nice thing about these ships is you don't have to dedicate one or the other, they are so versatile. You can change your load according to mission perameters.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Nice thing about these ships is you don't have to dedicate one or the other, they are so versatile. You can change your load according to mission perameters.

Agree, I am thinking (sorry if I have misunderstood you) more along the lines of a mission that may require a CAS/CAP option while a full Amphib load.

Having a Full Amphib load with 12 Helos and 6 STOVLs will provide for some good CAS/Strike options, but the ability to sustain it for 24/7 would be in doubt due to stores considerations IMO. as for a CAP against limited air threat, I think it would not be possible, with 6 STOVLs IMO.

With the operational availability of modern ships the RAN may be able to deploy both relatively short notice (say 30 days) during most of the year.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Agree, I am thinking (sorry if I have misunderstood you) more along the lines of a mission that may require a CAS/CAP option while a full Amphib load.

Having a Full Amphib load with 12 Helos and 6 STOVLs will provide for some good CAS/Strike options, but the ability to sustain it for 24/7 would be in doubt due to stores considerations IMO. as for a CAP against limited air threat, I think it would not be possible, with 6 STOVLs IMO.

With the operational availability of modern ships the RAN may be able to deploy both relatively short notice (say 30 days) during most of the year.

Possibly, but who can forsee an event where 2x LHD's will be required to carry a FULL amphibious lift capacity by BOTH RAN LHD's? That would provide a capability to deploy an entire Brigade amphibiously and I don't see an ADF requirement for that.

Battalion sized group yes. Not likely for a Brigade. Depending on maintenance/surge capacity it "may" be possible to use BOTH vessels for a particular operation. Certainly RAN has done so with Kanimbla/Manoora/Tobruk (deployed currently together in ET), I don't see any reason why more modern ships couldn't do so as well.

Under such circumstances a tactically significant airgroup could be carried by the vessels, with one particularly focussed on the Carrier role and operating up to 30 (if we actually HAD that many) F-35B's, plus a number of AWACS or ASW helo's, (again if we operated such)...