A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[Aussie Digger]

As you all know the RN was forced to expended a vast amount of time and effort into that one aircraft carrier and placed three nuclear submarine to find and sink to no avail, with the sinking of the General Belgrano it also forced the Argentine navy to put her into port in fear of losing her also with the lose of the submarine Santa Fe she could not be protected adequately.

So? That is hardly a reason for Australia needing to invest in one, it IS however a very good example of why Australia should invest in submarine capability as opposed to aircraft carrier capability...

It's presence caused the RN to work a bit harder. It certainly didn't impede the RN's overall operational capability and was in effect both strategically and tactically useless for the Argentinian Navy and was such a massive liability for the Argentinians they had to berth it...

The attempts to keep that one carrier in-service soaked up so much in the way of resources, that it distorted the Argentinian force structure enormously and made the force as a whole effectively useless for the type of conflict Argentina was about to enter.

Imagine the difference in the conflict if they ditched the carrier capability years beforehand and had instead invested the resources used for the carrier, more appropriately (IMHO) in aerial refuelling capability for their Mirage/Dagger/Super Etendard fleet and acquired additional Exocet ASM's?

THAT could have provided a war-winning capability. The carrier did not. Similarly in the Australian context, a carrier would be a nice big showy platform that would eat up an unholy amount of resources, whilst limiting the investment possible in enabling capabilities to actually make a carrier capability useful, whilst offering limited additional capability.

One can argue that a carrier could "defend the fleet" at a distance beyond land based airpower. I'd argue that, just like Argentina, we wouldn't HAVE a fleet WORTH defending if we had a carrier...

 

[t68]

We are or will have if the 12 magical Rudd subs arrive(2025 maybe),3(4) F-100 Aegis equipped AWD ,8 ANZAC Frigates(hopefully F-100 based future Frigates) ,2 Canberra class LHD, 5 KC-30A MRTT, 6 Boeing 737 Wegdetail AEWaC aircraft,24 F/A18F Super Hornet and 100 F35A JSF.Not a force to be taken lightly.

The Argentine aircraft carrier did play a role in how the RN deployed its forces tactically and strategically, the Argentine navy was predominately set up to fight and oppose Chile doctrinally and tactically, as were the RN nuclear sub boats doctrine was based on a fight against the Soviet Union in the Atlantic ocean, both taken out of there respective comfort zones.
In an Argentine context the force disposition was not sustainable with only the 2 workable submarines and then losing one the ARA Santa Fe at South Georgia, and nether sub played a role in the support of the carrier battle group.

Task group 79.1 consisted of,
ARA Veinticinco De Mayo (Colossus class aircraft carrier),
ARA Hercules (type 42 destroyer),
ARA Santisma Trinidad (type 42 destroyer),
ARA Punta Medanos (fleet tanker)

It’s no wonder without proper support the task group wound back safe in Argentine waters against 3 nuclear submarines.

Australia on the other hand is in a position to not only support a carrier task group but will have them means to do so, a likely task force could consist of the following,
A, Queen Elizabeth/America class light carrier,
B, Canberra class LHD,
C, Hobart AWD,
D, 2/3 ANZAC Frigate (or future frigate),
E, 2 Collins submarine (or son of Collins),
F, fleet tanker.

At any time the task force can add or lose either the light carrier or LHD pending it s mission set or combined operations as a whole, with a mission overview
A, Forward presence,
B, Deterrence,
C, Sea control,
D, Power Projection,
E, Maritime Security,
F, Humanitarian/Disaster Relief

This force structure give the not only the RAN flexibility but also the ADF as a whole. If a carrier will not give the RAN flexibility why do other countries persist with a carrier program?

Country In service In reserve Under construction Being rebuilt

United States 11, 6, 3, 0
United Kingdom 2, 0, 2, 0
Italy 2, 0, 0, 0
India 1, 0, 2, 1
Russia 1, 0, 0, 0
France 1, 0, ?, 0
Brazil 1, 0, 0, 0,
Spain 1, o, 1, o,
Thailand 1, 0, 0, 0
China 0, 0, ?, 1


PS
Sorry the graph did not come out as I hoped it would.

 

[gf0012-aust]

We are or will have if the 12 magical Rudd subs arrive(2025 maybe),3(4) F-100 Aegis equipped AWD ,8 ANZAC Frigates(hopefully F-100 based future Frigates) ,2 Canberra class LHD, 5 KC-30A MRTT, 6 Boeing 737 Wegdetail AEWaC aircraft,24 F/A18F Super Hornet and 100 F35A JSF.Not a force to be taken lightly.

assuming that the 12 sub order stays on track, they will be delivered over a 10-12 year period. we would only ever have 9 completely available due to deep cycle and scheduled maint - and that would be at 2040

The Argentine aircraft carrier did play a role in how the RN deployed its forces tactically and strategically,

nope, it caused concern up until the nukes arrived - the bigger threat was the Belgrano, and the absolute threat were the subs - they're the ones that resulted in the RN deploying disproportionate force to find and kill them. (which is what deployed subs do, they result in disproportionate force being deployed and this takes away critical and valuable elements from other force events)

the carrier was going to be killed if it sallied forfh, it was a no brainer. Thatcher was willing to kill it as soon as it left the port and exited the 12 mile limit. If push came to shove I have no doubt that adm woodward would have ordered its sinking in harbour - the nukes had the ability to do so.

the Argentine navy was predominately set up to fight and oppose Chile doctrinally and tactically, as were the RN nuclear sub boats doctrine was based on a fight against the Soviet Union in the Atlantic ocean, both taken out of there respective comfort zones.
In an Argentine context the force disposition was not sustainable with only the 2 workable submarines and then losing one the ARA Santa Fe at South Georgia, and nether sub played a role in the support of the carrier battle group.

and it was the missing subs that caused the concern, what you can't see results in force structure change. if they'd known where the subs were they would have tracked and killed and then blockaded the mainland ports

This force structure give the not only the RAN flexibility but also the ADF as a whole. If a carrier will not give the RAN flexibility why do other countries persist with a carrier program?

Country In service In reserve Under construction Being rebuilt

United States 11, 6, 3, 0
United Kingdom 2, 0, 2, 0
Italy 2, 0, 0, 0
India 1, 0, 2, 1
Russia 1, 0, 0, 0
France 1, 0, ?, 0
Brazil 1, 0, 0, 0,
Spain 1, o, 1, o,
Thailand 1, 0, 0, 0
China 0, 0, ?, 1


PS
Sorry the graph did not come out as I hoped it would.

it doesn't matter who has carriers, its whether their doctrine makes sense. if you think that half of those countries listed actually need carriers......

 

[RAAF-35]

assuming that the 12 sub order stays on track, they will be delivered over a 10-12 year period. we would only ever have 9 completely available due to deep cycle and scheduled maint - and that would be at 2040




nope, it caused concern up until the nukes arrived - the bigger threat was the Belgrano, and the absolute threat were the subs - they're the ones that resulted in the RN deploying disproportionate force to find and kill them. (which is whats sub, they result in the disproportionate force being deployed that takes away critical elements from other force events)

the carrier was going to be killed if it sallied forfh, it was a no brainer. Thatcher was willing to kill it as soon as it left the port and exited the 12 mile limit. If push came to shove I have no doubt that adm woodward would have ordered its sinking in harbour - the nukes had the ability to do so.




and it was the missing subs that caused the concern, what you can't see results in force structure change. if they'd known where the subs were they would have tracked and killed and then blockaded the mainland ports




it doesn't matter who has carriers, its whether their doctrine makes sense. if you think that half of those countries listed actually need carriers......

I can only see a couple countries in that list that dont really have a need for carriers. But other than those couple, the rest seem fine. I can't believe the amount of people on here who are against an aircraft carrier, and I've been holding backing my thoughts for a while now regarding this issue. The fact of the matter is that we could quite easily maintain an aircraft carrier (or two), despite what many seem to think. We could also afford an aircraft carrier, despite what many think. A carrier would not only provide the RAN, but the wider defence community a very valulable asset that has clearly demonstarted its usefullness over the past 70 years, and if you anti's on here think otherwise and want to question their usefullness, then you need to go find a labrador. Im with you on this one T68, but the majority of users on here are not. Im sure this oughta rattle a few cages.

 

[gf0012-aust]

and if you anti's on here think otherwise and want to question their usefullness, then you need to go find a labrador. Im with you on this one T68, but the majority of users on here are not. Im sure this oughta rattle a few cages.

hmm, I'm from a family who served on carriers, I am a proponent of fixed wing combat carrier air - but within whats obvious utility.

your comment about affordability flies in the face of what we know it costs to maintain a task force - and that means that as soon as the carrier deploys it needs protection.

the through life costs of a carrier are about 4 times its initial purchase price - the cost to maintain a relevant sized task force adequate to serve, replenish and protect, is about 5 times that. you can triple the support costs against a carrier per year.

people who trivialise the costs and utility need a reality check. we're not talking peanuts

now the govt has ripped $20bn out of defence for the next 10 years - so what else are you prepared to take away from the force to pay for this status symbol and singularly vulnerable asset?

bear in mind that to keep one carrier in constant service means buying at least 2. maintaining FBW and FBE means buying at least 3 if you are to have one in deep cycle and both active at all times.

so the cost is now a minimum of 9 times the initiial purchase price just to have concurrent presence - so what will be sacrificed when the money would be better spent:

on subs where disproportionate effort gets imposed by proxy on an enemy?
on tactical lift where we have a need to get forces on ground with decent lift in a proscribed time frame to impose our will in an insertion?
on SOCOMD where the bulk of our current tactical activity is occuring?
pn space where our new ewarfare capabilities can be proper utilised?

some of us do actually work in this space so we're more than aware of the real constraints we face.

this is not some computer game where aspirations can be realised, our capability has to be relevant to our threat horizons, it has to be in balance with the rest of the force that has to deploy in the purple battlespace

I like carriers, have a great affection for them, know the history through family service and know their utility.

I'm also a realist

 

[OpinionNoted]

I can only see a couple countries in that list that dont really have a need for carriers. But other than those couple, the rest seem fine. I can't believe the amount of people on here who are against an aircraft carrier, and I've been holding backing my thoughts for a while now regarding this issue. The fact of the matter is that we could quite easily maintain an aircraft carrier (or two), despite what many seem to think. We could also afford an aircraft carrier, despite what many think. A carrier would not only provide the RAN, but the wider defence community a very valulable asset that has clearly demonstarted its usefullness over the past 70 years, and if you anti's on here think otherwise and want to question their usefullness, then you need to go find a labrador. Im with you on this one T68, but the majority of users on here are not. Im sure this oughta rattle a few cages.

Yeah carriers are a valuable asset but the resorces expended to field 1 or 2 properly(queen elizabeth class-minimum)would be better spent on other assets.
If you were to put the resources into additional subs in place of 1 or 2 carriers and whatever extra supporting assets theyd most probably come with,then that would push the ran sub fleet out to what?...18 plus boats?
What would concern an enemy commander more,an adversary with 2 carriers that can be detected and targeted from hundreds of kilometres away or one with 18 plus subs...some of which,may or may not be in his near vicinity.

 

[RAAF-35]

hmm, I'm from a family who served on carriers, I am a proponent of fixed wing combat carrier air - but within whats obvious utility.

your comment about affordability flies in the face of what we know it costs to maintain a task force - and that means that as soon as the carrier deploys it needs protection.

the through life costs of a carrier are about 4 times its initial purchase price - the cost to maintain a relevant sized task force adequate to serve, replenish and protect, is about 5 times that. you can triple the support costs against a carrier per year.

people who trivialise the costs and utility need a reality check. we're not talking peanuts

now the govt has ripped $20bn out of defence for the next 10 years - so what else are you prepared to take away from the force to pay for this status symbol and singularly vulnerable asset?

bear in mind that to keep one carrier in constant service means buying at least 2. maintaining FBW and FBE means buying at least 3 if you are to have one in deep cycle and both active at all times.

so the cost is now a minimum of 9 times the initiial purchase price just to have concurrent presence - so what will be sacrificed when the money would be better spent:

on subs where disproportionate effort gets imposed by proxy on an enemy?
on tactical lift where we have a need to get forces on ground with decent lift in a proscribed time frame to impose our will in an insertion?
on SOCOMD where the bulk of our current tactical activity is occuring?
pn space where our new ewarfare capabilities can be proper utilised?

some of us do actually work in this space so we're more than aware of the real constraints we face.

this is not some computer game where aspirations can be realised, our capability has to be relevant to our threat horizons, it has to be in balance with the rest of the force that has to deploy in the purple battlespace

I like carriers, have a great affection for them, know the history through family service and know their utility.

I'm also a realist

I love that one liner mate, everyone seems to use one. You mention other issues such as what would have to be sacrificied to maintain a carrier. Funny how no one has raised any concerns about Rudds Subs that will cost at the very least 30bn+ (just manufacturing them) (not including the prices it will take to maintain 12 for the 50 years they're expected to last), yet when the thought of maintaining a carrier forces people to take a seat. Interesting.

You also say "our capability has to be relevent to our threat horizons". What are our threat horizons? Can you see into the ball and tell me what they are? Because lately the concerns for most nations in the pacific are what everyone on here denies. You also say " it has to be in balance with the rest of the force that has to deploy in the purple battlespace". Do you not believe that a carrier would be able to provide CAS, precision stike, and many other tasks to a deployed Canberra LHD? What is the point of having an amphibious assult ship, if the soliders who are deployed dont have proper air support to rely on? A tiger helicopter cannot replace a fixed wing aircraft in this role.

 

[RAAF-35]

Yeah carriers are a valuable asset but the resorces expended to field 1 or 2 properly(queen elizabeth class-minimum)would be better spent on other assets.
If you were to put the resources into additional subs in place of 1 or 2 carriers and whatever extra supporting assets theyd most probably come with,then that would push the ran sub fleet out to what?...18 plus boats?
What would concern an enemy commander more,an adversary with 2 carriers that can be detected and targeted from hundreds of kilometres away or one with 18 plus subs...some of which,may or may not be in his near vicinity.

I dont think you realise just how much a fleet of 18 subs would cost to design,build,run and maintain. 12 of them are going to be well above 30bn, so 18? Hmmm. I also find the fact that you assume that 18 RAN subs would be deployed at one time quite strange. Right now we cant even keep more then 2 at sea at any given time, let alone 18! A carrier maybe detected at long range (highly dought it though), but it has the ability to protect itself from just about anything. Whether that be in the form of a fighter aircraft or a missile, there isnt much that can destroy a carrier. How many nimitz class carriers have been sunk? And dont say they havent been in a hostile environment before, because you can bet they have been.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I love that one liner mate, everyone seems to use one.

you are of course enitled to your opinion, if you want to be a prat and disrespectful, and by rote trivialise my experience by some silly asinine comment, then your future on here will be short. I suggest that you read the forum rules before replying in kind to anyone else

You mention other issues such as what would have to be sacrificied to maintain a carrier. Funny how no one has raised any concerns about Rudds Subs that will cost at the very least 30bn+ (just manufacturing them) (not including the prices it will take to maintain 12 for the 50 years they're expected to last), yet when the thought of maintaining a carrier forces people to take a seat. Interesting.

what bit don't you understand about carriers needing constant escort and costing exponentially more on support costs as well as fleet costs?

what bit don't you understand about subs causing disproportionate effort by any enemy to find, track and kill? they have far greater disproportionate effect against an enemy navy than what any carrier would

You also say "our capability has to be relevent to our threat horizons". What are our threat horizons? Can you see into the ball and tell me what they are?

you do realise that when we buy assets we buy against what defence and political planners foresee - and with far more information than what you might see in the Sydney Morning Herald Assets are purchase based on a series of likely military vignettes that are projected out to another 40 years.

Because lately the concerns for most nations in the pacific are what everyone on here denies.

and have you ever been involved in force planning?

You also say " it has to be in balance with the rest of the force that has to deploy in the purple battlespace". Do you not believe that a carrier would be able to provide CAS, precision stike, and many other tasks to a deployed Canberra LHD?

the LHA's will be able to provide CAS within a proscibed window/. thats why the Tigers are being certified. what tactical event do you want Aust to go in alone - because if you think that a single or even dual carrier task force is enough to impose tactical will then you're way off the mark.

What is the point of having an amphibious assult ship, if the soliders who are deployed dont have proper air support to rely on? A tiger helicopter cannot replace a fixed wing aircraft in this role.

army certainly think so, and it was they who made the push for the LHA's. it was they who decided that certified Tigers for a maritime rtole could more than adequately provide support within the limits of how we fight.

it is a purple event btw, its not a service decision.


Finally. Check your attitude, you're coming across as a smart arse - feel free to point out your expertise if you decide that people who actually have a clue are not competent in their decision making and analysis skills about how warfighting is conducted..

 

[gf0012-aust]

I dont think you realise just how much a fleet of 18 subs would cost to design,build,run and maintain. 12 of them are going to be well above 30bn, so 18?

why would we look at 18 subs? the govt choice (not navy) was 12. $30bn to raise, train and sustain 12 subs is pretty reasonable. - and it allows 10% contingency (the normal contingency rate)

to sustain 3 carriers and their requisite fleet support would triple that without too much effort - esp over 30 years.

a deep cycle maint for a carrier will be 18months and will cost a 1/3rd of a new destroyer/frigate.

Whether that be in the form of a fighter aircraft or a missile, there isnt much that can destroy a carrier.

and thats based on what? is that why the greatest threat to a carrier is a sub? do you know how many torpedoes it takes to mobility kill a carrier?

How many nimitz class carriers have been sunk? And dont say they havent been in a hostile environment before, because you can bet they have been.

and what support structure and sustainment structure, what budget and political imperative, what doctrine does the USN and RAN, USGovt and AustGovt have in common here?

what the heck has the survivability of a $5bn platform cost of a Nimitz/Stennis carrier got to do with an LHA or a small carrier?

care to add in the cost of a Nimitz led task force?
care to add in the esensor layer that the US can field and what other countries can't even remotely emulate?
care to factor in the different sustainment costs associated with a nuke? (they're cheaper in through life for their size)

etc etc....

 

[OpinionNoted]

I dont think you realise just how much a fleet of 18 subs would cost to design,build,run and maintain. 12 of them are going to be well above 30bn, so 18? Hmmm. I also find the fact that you assume that 18 RAN subs would be deployed at one time quite strange. Right now we cant even keep more then 2 at sea at any given time, let alone 18! A carrier maybe detected at long range (highly dought it though), but it has the ability to protect itself from just about anything. Whether that be in the form of a fighter aircraft or a missile, there isnt much that can destroy a carrier. How many nimitz class carriers have been sunk? And dont say they havent been in a hostile environment before, because you can bet they have been.

6 subs or 2 carriers to aquire,man,through life costs...what would be the cheaper option?
Id say the subs and in particular the manning levels required to people them as opposed to 2 carriers.
Also 18 in place of 12 subs means a cheaper unit price as i think i understand it.
And out of 18 subs...some may or may not be in the vicinity of an enemy fleet...not all 18.

 

[aussienscale]

This thread is becoming a joke yet again ! What part of hypothetical do people not understand ? I thought the thread was a bit of fun throwing out HYPOTHETICL possibilities of an Australian Aircraft Carrier ?

So how about we leave this thread as some fun amongst otherwise good debate in other threads, if you guys feel so strongly about it start a FOR & AGAINST an Australian Aircraft Carrier and argue on there ? All I am trying to say is lets debate in the serious threads, is it too much to ask to have a bit of fun as well ??

 

[gf0012-aust]

This thread is becoming a joke yet again ! What part of hypothetical do people not understand ? I thought the thread was a bit of fun throwing out HYPOTHETICL possibilities of an Australian Aircraft Carrier ?

you're supposed to debate with consideration for real world impacts. if people want to abandon reality and just have a wish list where they can weight the argument for their favourite toy and not consider real world imperatives. then they're in the wrong forum.

So how about we leave this thread as some fun amongst otherwise good debate in other threads, if you guys feel so strongly about it start a FOR & AGAINST an Australian Aircraft Carrier and argue on there ? All I am trying to say is lets debate in the serious threads, is it too much to ask to have a bit of fun as well ??

I have a strong aversion to any debate where reality is abandoned as it generally acts as a catalyst for unrealistic assumptions and expectations,

crap is presented as fact (as has happened in here), and then people have the audacity to be offended because no one agrees with their pet rock theories?

there are plenty of other forums where people can sprout nonsense - but if they want to come in here and pretend to be knowledgeable and produce silly commentary as supporting evidence then you might want to let it slide - but some of us won't.

whats next klingon stealth and mechatrons? after all, cloaking and mechatrons are just as viable and in embryonic development stages so could be in the field in 2030-2040.

 

[t68]

I can only see a couple countries in that list that dont really have a need for carriers. But other than those couple, the rest seem fine. I can't believe the amount of people on here who are against an aircraft carrier, and I've been holding backing my thoughts for a while now regarding this issue. The fact of the matter is that we could quite easily maintain an aircraft carrier (or two), despite what many seem to think. We could also afford an aircraft carrier, despite what many think. A carrier would not only provide the RAN, but the wider defence community a very valulable asset that has clearly demonstarted its usefullness over the past 70 years, and if you anti's on here think otherwise and want to question their usefullness, then you need to go find a labrador. Im with you on this one T68, but the majority of users on here are not. Im sure this oughta rattle a few cages.

I would like to think they are not anti carrier per say, but I can see where they are coming from in a fiscal sense under the current budget restrains, and i would like to believe this is why they are so anti-carrier in this thread.

If the budget stays at this level of expenditure and certainly looks like it will have no increase in the foreseeable future well no money no carrier. But that is not to say that Australia cannot afford a carrier(s) capability which is two different things.

I believe Australia should have the capability to provide a self reliant self sustaining robust blue water navy that can provide additional relief for our allies not only in the Indian/Pacific oceans but all over the world as part of a nation that lives up to the ethic’s of a responsible UN member of the world and not be so heavily reliant on the USN .Our leader of government like to grandstand on the world stage but something’s require action and not words.

Looking at our current RAN contribution while meaningful is quite a let down 1 Frigate on rotation to the Persian Gulf is IMO PPP from a RAN view.

The UK is having enormous fiscal problems at the moment but still see’s the wisdom of a having a versatile asset a carrier brings’s to the table. The Queen Elizabeth class carriers pack a powerful punch with intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, force projection, logistics support, close air support, anti-submarine and anti-surface naval warfare and land attack capabilities. If by chance the UK do lose the carrier capability it will bring more pressure to bear upon the USN to replace those assets from somewhere else and i really do not think even the US can bear the cost of this alone, nor should the US. The US at some point in time cannot be expected to provide the resources that a wealthy country like Australia can provide for itself.

 

[aussienscale]

I fully understand you point of view, so if this is not the forum for this type of thread lets shut it down once and for all and get back to whats at hand ?
I am not being a smart arse here, if this is not suitable for the way this forum is to be run lets just get rid of it and get on with it ?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I would like to think they are not anti carrier per say, but I can see where they are coming from in a fiscal sense under the current budget restrains, and i would like to believe this is why they are so anti-carrier in this thread.

its not an issue of being anti-carrier - it's not an issue of being fiscally focused, but the reality is that if you have a carrier then you will have to decide what else in your force structure will be sacrificed. that is the reality that we deal with.

Aust is not the US of the 1950's where we have a bottomless bucket of money, have a significant threat of such magnitude that we are fighting alone and where we can buy what we want.

The people who write Plan Blue look out for 30-40-50 years ahead. carriers aren't in there for a reason.

If the budget stays at this level of expenditure and certainly looks like it will have no increase in the foreseeable future well no money no carrier. But that is not to say that Australia cannot afford a carrier(s) capability which is two different things.

3 carriers = 2 sustained persistent fleets. One carrier task force is atypically $5-6bn per year to sustain.. thats 6 subs or a substantial cohort of Growlers or JSF per year.

I believe Australia should have the capability to provide a self reliant self sustaining robust blue water navy that can provide additional relief for our allies not only in the Indian/Pacific oceans but all over the world as part of a nation that lives up to the ethic’s of a responsible UN member of the world and not be so heavily reliant on the USN .Our leader of government like to grandstand on the world stage but something’s require action and not words.

and it requires s balanced force across all services. Army and RAAF were strong supporters of the LHA as they al; agreed on the common utility - lessons learnt from ET and Fiji.

Looking at our current RAN contribution while meaningful is quite a let down 1 Frigate on rotation to the Persian Gulf is IMO PPP from a RAN view.

get 3 carriers and 2 x task forces and that would disappear as well..... kiss goodbye to the training and sustaining budgets - the first things that both sides of our Govt target when they want to save money nationally

The UK is having enormous fiscal problems at the moment but still see’s the wisdom of a having a versatile asset a carrier brings’s to the table. The Queen Elizabeth class carriers pack a powerful punch with intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, force projection, logistics support, close air support, anti-submarine and anti-surface naval warfare and land attack capabilities. If by chance the UK do lose the carrier capability it will bring more pressure to bear upon the USN to replace those assets from somewhere else and i really do not think even the US can bear the cost of this alone, nor should the US. The US at some point in time cannot be expected to provide the resources that a wealthy country like Australia can provide for itself.

The US is close to losing one of their carriers and attendant fleet support assets, the fleet support will be distributed, but a carrier is at risk under Gates and the forthcoming QDR. Even our well off neighbours know carriers hurt. and they have an actual need.

 

[RAAF-35]

why would we look at 18 subs? the govt choice (not navy) was 12. $30bn to raise, train and sustain 12 subs is pretty reasonable. - and it allows 10% contingency (the normal contingency rate)

to sustain 3 carriers and their requisite fleet support would triple that without too much effort - esp over 30 years.

a deep cycle maint for a carrier will be 18months and will cost a 1/3rd of a new destroyer/frigate.



and thats based on what? is that why the greatest threat to a carrier is a sub? do you know how many torpedoes it takes to mobility kill a carrier?




and what support structure and sustainment structure, what budget and political imperative, what doctrine does the USN and RAN, USGovt and AustGovt have in common here?

what the heck has the survivability of a $5bn platform cost of a Nimitz/Stennis carrier got to do with an LHA or a small carrier?

care to add in the cost of a Nimitz led task force?
care to add in the esensor layer that the US can field and what other countries can't even remotely emulate?
care to factor in the different sustainment costs associated with a nuke? (they're cheaper in through life for their size)

etc etc....

Um mate, just to let you know if you had read the posts properly you would of seen that I was not the one suggesting we get 18 subs. I was the one saying why deploying 18 of OpinionNoted subs at once would not be possible. I am not a defence analysis, however I have 3 uncles who have served in the RAAF; an avionics technician, a hornet pilot, and a firefighter. Togther they have nearly 70 years of defence experience that they have told myself and the rest of our family about. Im sure that you fully realise what a hornet pilot must go through to be C-Cat qualified, so yes, I do have some knowledge on how wars are fought. You're complaining about me, yet you're the one whos coming off with a far far more aggresive atitiude towards me. So before you start suggesting that I should change the way I should post, I'd recommend you review some of yours and change YOUR attitude.

Would you care to add in the cost of developing 12 'future' subs? Care to add in possible delays that could be years? Care to add in the extra cost these delays could create? Care to add in if the subs will even be built? And what does a nuke have to do with this? Why would you bring in a nuke into a RAN carrier thread? Care to read everything that I said and not have a go at me for something I didnt even suggest? Your complaining that I brought in the nimitz, yet you went ahead and added a nuke! Bizzare, really.

 

[OpinionNoted]

Um mate, just to let you know if you had read the posts properly you would of seen that I was not the one suggesting we get 18 subs. I was the one saying why deploying 18 of OpinionNoted subs at once would not be possible.


Some of which may or may not be there isnt saying all 18 deployed simultanously....ok im out.

 

[1805]

If Australia needed CVs a couple of conventionally powered Charles de Gaulles sized ships could meet the requirement. That would give c90-100 aircraft between the two? The QE class would be over kill (in fact they are overkill for the RN)

 

[swerve]

The UK is having enormous fiscal problems at the moment but still see’s the wisdom of a having a versatile asset a carrier brings’s to the table.

The UK has about three times the population & GDP of Australia, & is buying two carriers. Scale that down to Australias resources . . . .