Absolutely, we can but hope! and they'll probably show us why we should have kept them ! - btw there must be the odd RAAF/RAN bloke whos flown the Shar on exchange, be good to hear his take on the SHar. Does the RAN have a fixed wing component at all or are they all helos ?Whiskyjack said:Except that the Aussie F18 is in service and the FRS2 isn't!
No point comparing models when one has been retired, its the GR9(?) now. Also Wedgetail is a wee way behind schedule as well. I'm always a bit leery about comparing platforms that arn't in service for one reason or another!
At the end of the day these assets will be operating together not against each other.
Although I am sure that the Aussie F18s will be exercising against the FRS2 in Indian colours in the future from all accounts!
Does Australia need an aircraft carrier?
- Thread starter Big-E
- Start date
No, you're right, unfortunately. When the SHARs were in service, I'd have given them a good chance against almost anything (in their last DACT exercise I think the score was 9-0 in their favour, against USAF F-15 & RAF Tornado F3Whiskyjack said:
), but now we're down to ground attack Harriers with no radar, & AIM-9 for self-defence only, it wouldn't be much of a contest. Only thing in the Harriers favour is the Sea King AEWs, & when the Wedgetails are in service the advantage they give the RAAF will swamp that.Why, oh, why, was that ghastly cock-up with the SHARs engines allowed to happen? :flaming
Except the Wasp is an old design, very expensive to operate, very maintenance-intensive & requiring a large crew. For the price of one new-built Wasp, you could buy three BPE or Mistral, and their annual operating cost would probably be less. Half the crew, for a start - and a lot more tons afloat. That'd give you more capability, & a hell of a lot more flexibility.Markus40 said:
Everyone assumes Australia will be able to operate the LHDs as the Americans do. America routinely sends its warships out fully loaded with Marines and their air wings for long 6 months deployments. I doubt whether Australia can do the same.
More than likely the Australians will send their LHDs loaded with its Army personnel and equipment out for planned exercises involving amphibious landings. Outside any peacekeeping or humanitarian missions, the LHDs will be anchored in port waiting to be called upon. With only two in service, they don't have the number of LHDs the American navy has to deploy them for regular 6 months deployments, especially for sea control duties.
The Australians also don't have enough Army personnel to regularly deploy a battalion of men on these ships for long deployments either. Yes, their Army will be able to send a battalion of their rapid reaction forces to man an LHD or two for short humanitarian missions and for planned exercises, but not full time.
If the Australian make the mistake to use these LHDs full time as sea control ships, as light carriers, and acquire F-35Bs for them, they won't be available for the sealift missions they were designed for unless they are kept close to home. Sending them off as light carriers for a RIMPAC exercise off Hawaii is too far from home.
Yes, F-35Bs can be operated off the LHDs, but is the Australian Army's rapid reaction forces as large as Spain's, Italy's, France's, or the United Kingdom's? Even if the Australians bought a dozen or so, the squadron wouldn't be ready full time either. They would only be ready for a planned exercise or for short humanitarian missions.
These ships were bought for one purpose, to be ready to sealift an army battalion of their rapid reaction forces. Except for planned exercises, I suspect they will see most of their time anchored in port, waiting to be called upon for sealift when needed.
More than likely the Australians will send their LHDs loaded with its Army personnel and equipment out for planned exercises involving amphibious landings. Outside any peacekeeping or humanitarian missions, the LHDs will be anchored in port waiting to be called upon. With only two in service, they don't have the number of LHDs the American navy has to deploy them for regular 6 months deployments, especially for sea control duties.
The Australians also don't have enough Army personnel to regularly deploy a battalion of men on these ships for long deployments either. Yes, their Army will be able to send a battalion of their rapid reaction forces to man an LHD or two for short humanitarian missions and for planned exercises, but not full time.
If the Australian make the mistake to use these LHDs full time as sea control ships, as light carriers, and acquire F-35Bs for them, they won't be available for the sealift missions they were designed for unless they are kept close to home. Sending them off as light carriers for a RIMPAC exercise off Hawaii is too far from home.
Yes, F-35Bs can be operated off the LHDs, but is the Australian Army's rapid reaction forces as large as Spain's, Italy's, France's, or the United Kingdom's? Even if the Australians bought a dozen or so, the squadron wouldn't be ready full time either. They would only be ready for a planned exercise or for short humanitarian missions.
These ships were bought for one purpose, to be ready to sealift an army battalion of their rapid reaction forces. Except for planned exercises, I suspect they will see most of their time anchored in port, waiting to be called upon for sealift when needed.
Last edited:
Sorry I have a fundamental problems with this. These are military assests that need to be kept at an opeational pitch in respect of training an prepareness to be effective. This is not achieved by sitting in port waiting for something to happen or conducting limited local operations. Look at the two LPH is you want an idea of how they will be operated, both ships are very busy.Sea Toby said:
It would be an error not to operate these ships in the light carrier role with VSTOL aircraft should the opportunity present itself as the development of these skills would be of considerable use. Mind you I am aware at this stage it is unlikley we will see F-35B in RAAF colours but we can still train with others.
These ships will need to be 'trained' and I would expect to see them at exercises in order to develop interoperability with out allies. Expect to see them at RIMPAC if the ALP don't kill the project.
abramsteve
New Member
If you look at the operational deployment of our existing sealift vessels in the last 6-8 years, you will find that they spend very little time 'anchored alongside'.Sea Toby said:
Use of these vessels in the traditional 'light carrier' role I think would be unlikley, however should the RAAF or the RAN get the 'b' then it would be foolish to not at least train for such a use.
I prefer to think of these vessels as 'assault ships', which can be deployed with an airwing of helos (both attack and lift) along with a possible fixed wing group if the situation required. These ships are more of a regional policeing tool, than just troop ships. Therefore they must be capable of adapting to any situation.
Alot of people forget that the LHD's can transport our army forces to the danger area and once it has transported everyone it is now empty. This is when the JSF B versions can fly with in ferry config 3000kms and then land with little fuel on the LHD to be used as a mini aircraft carrier.
The LHD will then act to provide air support once the troops are on the ground.
This would work very well in east timor type conflicts in our region and would put less strain on the conventional fighter aircraft, meaning we wouldn't need as many conventional aircraft which offsets the fact that money would be spent on the VTOL JSF.
However we could just use our Tiger Helicopters for close air support.
I think a very good idea would be to order 50-60 F-22 now, then once the JSF program has become dirt cheap after 10 years of production we then buy 30 JSF VTOL versions.
The LHD will then act to provide air support once the troops are on the ground.
This would work very well in east timor type conflicts in our region and would put less strain on the conventional fighter aircraft, meaning we wouldn't need as many conventional aircraft which offsets the fact that money would be spent on the VTOL JSF.
However we could just use our Tiger Helicopters for close air support.
I think a very good idea would be to order 50-60 F-22 now, then once the JSF program has become dirt cheap after 10 years of production we then buy 30 JSF VTOL versions.
Cootamundra
New Member
What you just said there is your problem - NO-one bar the USAF can order the F-22. There is speculation that we might be able to in the future but that is a big IF. There is even a chance that the f-22 program will get NO more orders at all after the contracted 179.rjmaz1 said:
nfloorl:abramsteve
New Member
Lets not let this thread turn into another front in the F-22 V JSF war guys!!!
Cootamundra
New Member
Fair point, not even sure how we got onto that topic anyway - it's a bit like...:hitwallabramsteve said:Lets not let this thread turn into another front in the F-22 V JSF war guys!!!
abramsteve
New Member
I know what you mean.... this argument seems to be invading just about every discussion!Cootamundra said:
Agreed. Which is why I think the Spanish BPE design is the better ship for Australia. It's primarily a helicopter-carrying amphibious ship, with a secondary fixed-wing aviation capability - and that's how the Spanish intend to use it. It will be their main naval aviation ship only when PdA is in refit. It's not a replacement for PdA - a new ship is planned for that, some time in the future.abramsteve said:
Of course, if Australia doesn't buy the F-35B it doesn't matter. In that case, the LHDs would operate in the "assault ship" role with a helicopter-only air wing. HMS Ocean has done exactly that, going into action unsupported by fixed-wing air in Sierra Leone, where no air threat existed. That's the most likely use for the Oz LHDs: interventions in, e.g., Vanuatu.
contedicavour
New Member
Australian LPD
Where (in Australia) will the LPDs be built ?
Does it change anything if the Navantia or the Mistral designs are selected ?
Does any of the 2 European shipyards propose a higher % of Australian construction/use of local components ?
cheers
Where (in Australia) will the LPDs be built ?
Does it change anything if the Navantia or the Mistral designs are selected ?
Does any of the 2 European shipyards propose a higher % of Australian construction/use of local components ?
cheers
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Ordinarily I would say Australia would not need a carrier. But then again, given the changing power balances in the Pacific/South East Asia, I think it would be a good idea for the Royal Australian Navy to improve its blue-water capabilities. A carrier at some point might be a good idea.
Then again there's no need to rush in getting a carrier.
Then again there's no need to rush in getting a carrier.
I don't think we can justify a carrier but it make sense to configure the LHD for air operations with VSTOL when it is constructed. As noted earlier this allows interoperability with other 'air capable' allies even if we dont get VSTOL aircarft. The Navantia BPE offers that in the package but Mistral wouel need modification.Musashi_kenshin said:
So I am in favour of the BPE (and bomber if you are listening small is not good, so don't can the project if the ALP get into power).
Cootamundra
New Member
The build location like the type has not been decided as yet. One of the discussions going on at the moment is whether or not we'll get good value for money building them here. Also with the new AWDs being built in Adelaide we won't have all that much room to be building two new 25,000t ships. I think both designers are talking about a fair bit of industry involvement here in Aus but they are both also saying that they would be happy to build them at home. My vote goes for the Navantia SPS hands down. The Mistral is a nice platform and will do all that we require however the Navantia offers us that little bit more just in case we decided to re-form the Fleet Air Arm. Also the SPS has a bit more room and despite not being built yet the first one isn't far off.contedicavour said:
Atlantic Friend
New Member
Isn't the problem linked to the coming retirement of Australias fleet of F-111 ? These birds could accomplish long-range missions, and if I'm not mistaken their potential replacements will have shorter legs. There an Aussie carrier could make a lot more sense, giving Australia the possibility to provide air cover in potential hot spots - God knows the Pacific doesn't lack any of those.
Heres something interesting i found on a Navy website.
16 March 2005
Ian McPhedran, Defence reporter with News Ltd., says secret discussions have been held with ship builders about equipping the proposed two large new Australian warships with fighter planes.
The Navy plans to buy two $800 million, 25,000-tonne amphibious ships by 2010.
A push is under way to give the vessels the capacity to carry eight or more so-called Short Take-off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) fighters.
The aircraft would cost about $6 million more than the $70 million price tag for the conventional Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) being purchased for the RAAF, he says.
The Government wants to buy up to 100 of the yet-to-be-built next generation fighters in a $15 billion project. According to industry sources, there would be no problem having the final 20 or so coming off the STOVL production line.
Such a move would give the Navy an aircraft carrier capability for the first time since HMAS Melbourne was retired in June 1982.
Two designs are being considered for the ship contract - the already built Mistral Class (pictured above), from the French partnership of DCN-Armaris, and the BPE, from Spain's navy shipbuilder Navantia, to be built in late 2008. The Spanish ship will include a port side "ski jump" flight deck to operate the JSF. That option is also available to Australia.
It is understood the talks have focused on issues such as deck strength and space for the fighters.
McPhedran said that Defence stressed that there was no "existing" plan to equip the ships to carry short take-off aircraft.
16 March 2005
Ian McPhedran, Defence reporter with News Ltd., says secret discussions have been held with ship builders about equipping the proposed two large new Australian warships with fighter planes.
The Navy plans to buy two $800 million, 25,000-tonne amphibious ships by 2010.
A push is under way to give the vessels the capacity to carry eight or more so-called Short Take-off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) fighters.
The aircraft would cost about $6 million more than the $70 million price tag for the conventional Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) being purchased for the RAAF, he says.
The Government wants to buy up to 100 of the yet-to-be-built next generation fighters in a $15 billion project. According to industry sources, there would be no problem having the final 20 or so coming off the STOVL production line.
Such a move would give the Navy an aircraft carrier capability for the first time since HMAS Melbourne was retired in June 1982.
Two designs are being considered for the ship contract - the already built Mistral Class (pictured above), from the French partnership of DCN-Armaris, and the BPE, from Spain's navy shipbuilder Navantia, to be built in late 2008. The Spanish ship will include a port side "ski jump" flight deck to operate the JSF. That option is also available to Australia.
It is understood the talks have focused on issues such as deck strength and space for the fighters.
McPhedran said that Defence stressed that there was no "existing" plan to equip the ships to carry short take-off aircraft.