A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[aussienscale]

The sub fleet is a core element in ADF doctrine and govt sees a bad ass SSK/G fleet as increasing our strategic weight regionally and acting as a form of deterrent, a single carrier probably wouldn’t do the same. Plus you have to remember that investing in home grown mean investing in Aus R&D base which pays off long term. Still bargain basement prices.

I understand what you are saying about a sub fleet being a core element, strategic weight etc, but to be realistic the visual presence of a carrier in a given situation is also a very valuable show of presence and power as opposed to subs, which you know are there but not in your face. The US and to a certain extent the UK etc have proven this time after time.
Sorry but would have to totally disagree with you on long term payoff in Aus R&D in a home grown sub ? Would be interested in what payoff we have had from the Collins so far compared to the investment we have made.
Now don't get me wrong I am not dogging the Collin's as a sub, it is the most potent conventional sub in the world, just ask the US (not that they will give you a real answer) but I can't see any pay off, let alone our ability to actually man 12 subs larger than Collins

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I understand what you are saying about a sub fleet being a core element, strategic weight etc, but to be realistic the visual presence of a carrier in a given situation is also a very valuable show of presence and power as opposed to subs, which you know are there but not in your face. The US and to a certain extent the UK etc have proven this time after time.

As tools of power projection i couldn’t agree more, big bad ass carrier all the way. However when defending ourselves against a major East Asian power? No way, I’ll take the SSG's any day.

Sorry but would have to totally disagree with you on long term payoff in Aus R&D in a home grown sub ? Would be interested in what payoff we have had from the Collins so far compared to the investment we have made.
Now don't get me wrong I am not dogging the Collin's as a sub, it is the most potent conventional sub in the world, just ask the US (not that they will give you a real answer) but I can't see any pay off, let alone our ability to actually man 12 subs larger than Collins

Well for one thing up to 75% of the tax dollars you spend here get picked up again, it’s called the multiplier effect. Thus spending half the money OS ends up in a net loss. Plus its Australian jobs you’re funding, it’s basically economic stimulus.

Another thing is a strong R&D base is critical if you value Australia's future as a major maritime power. Designing and manufacturing our own first rate kit means in time of war we are well situated to equip ourselves, plus it could lead to exports (eg Nulka) which can be profitable.

But the biggest benefit is you can actually get an end product which is perfectly suited to your own requirements, which if you could you would for practically all military equipment (most of the kit we buy is really designed for someone else’s requirements).

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

If you can't man 12 subs, you certainly can't man 1 QE carrier.

 

[SASWanabe]

But then you'd effectively constantly deploy 25% of the fighter force, and the most capable 25%. If you want the RAAF at proper strength you would need to replace the Rhino's or the RAAF has in effect 3 fighter squadrons instead of 4.

What i meant to say was rather than tracking down old Skyhawks we could use the Super Hornets to train up air crews whilst we're waiting on F-35s

The question I have to ask in all this is for what purpose? What utility would the ADF get out of a single carrier? How would fit with current doctrine and strategic posture?

I see where your coming from but a carrier opens up tonnes of options, such as in the event of a disaster you could load the carrier up with CH-47 and load an LHD up with relief supplies sail both to the place in question and just transfer CH-47 to the LHD load em up, Send em in, Back to the carrier to refuel while they wait to transfer over again to load up. not to mention if the LHD's ever did actualy land troops on hostile shores a carrier providing CAS would be an advantage.

thats just my imagination working but im sure others could come up with more realistic situatons where a carrier would be an advantage.

 

[SASWanabe]

If you can't man 12 subs, you certainly can't man 1 QE carrier.

Mate im 16, 17 in a couple days(I.E Recruitment Age) A Flagship Carrier is far more attractive a working environment to me than a tube under the water...

No offence intended, just stating facts



And.... with a carrier and LHD's capable of landing and sustaining/supporting an armored force 800-1200 infantry strong would that not push Australia from "Green Water" to "Blue Water" status?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If you can't man 12 subs, you certainly can't man 1 QE carrier.

Actually that is not the case. Submarine service is far more arduous than surface fleet service. Underwater, no internet connection, no port visit and two shifts for two months. Submarines are crewed exclusively by multi year service experts, a lot of a carriers crew can be 18 year olds used to run around the deck pushing stuff. This is just baseless surface appearance comparison.

 

[aussienscale]

If you can't man 12 subs, you certainly can't man 1 QE carrier.

That's why a modified Canberra Class (built in Oz) without the dock deck could be an alternative ? You could man 2 for the price of one, so to speak ?
Just a suggestion, Don't want to get into the price, aircraft maning, need, etc etc etc etc

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What i meant to say was rather than tracking down old Skyhawks we could use the Super Hornets to train up air crews whilst we're waiting on F-35s.

Super Hornets are busy doing their job. If you want to buy a carrier you have to buy the air wing on top of the current air force. We don't just have that air force for show. Anyway there is 4-6 years before the carrier would be delivered so plenty of time to build a naval air wing.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That's why a modified Canberra Class (built in Oz) without the dock deck could be an alternative ? You could man 2 for the price of one, so to speak ?
Just a suggestion, Don't want to get into the price, aircraft maning, need, etc etc etc etc

Manning figures quoted in the tabulated data of different ships are not based on equal baselines. The core ship crew of a QE would not be significantly higher than a LHD. All the extra crew are there to do all those carrier things and to support those people. So a carrier configured LHD would only save a few MTs and the like from a full blown QE carrier.

 

[gf0012-aust]

i see your point but dont agree with that, if the governments willing to spend 30bn+ on desining and building our own subs when a couple off the shelf euros would be 10-15bn thats Adventurism in my mind.

i know id rather have 15bn to play around with than homegrown subs.

as someone who has actually worked on 3 different sub types and in UDT, buying a euro sub and thinking that its a better bargain for our maritime doctrine is just plain bloody idiotic - and subs ranging from 1500 tonnes up... in a number of different countries.

I've gone through this debate so many times I'm not going to rehash again, but I wish this subject was not dumbed down to a level which was meaningless and that the general public ended up agreeing with the simple public sound bites as unimpeachable truths

 

[ThePuss]

I agree with Abraham, if we did end up getting a QE, F35B would be best for us because the Canberra's could be certified to operate them and keep up training while the QE was in refit.

I do not support operating fixed wing aircraft of RAN platforms at all, if the they are operated off a LHD or god forbid a QE.

For the amphibious operations the the RAN would attempt solo, escorting Naval Gun Support (NGS) combined with a small Tiger detachment would provide ample Close Air Support (CAS) to the troops. This is contrary to the latest edition of The Navy (The Naval League of Australia, mouth piece) a magazine I used to respect but now I think is totally delusional.

They basically state that NGS is useless, Which I think the Royal Marines who where extremely gratefully for the support they received when they assaulted the Al-Faw Peninsula in GW-2 by ANZAC and some RN counterparts would disrepute.
The following message was sent directly to ANZAC's after her support. "The Al Faw Vegetation Belt has been successfully cleared of all enemy and the airport and other key military installations are now secure with no enemy resistance. Success was largely due to aggressive use of indirect fire assets and the swift and lethal response of respective units. Your bombardment and destruction of key military installations had a huge impact on the ground and shattered the enemy’s will to fight. —40 Commando, "

I now put the League in the category as the loonies at Air Power Australia.

We need to buy the surplus Bay now, not a 65 000 ton Carrier some time around 2025. Forget wasting millions on the LPA rust buckets, Get rid of them now and get experience on a Ampib with a Dock before the LHD's come online This would have the added bonus of getting JP 2048 PH 4C sorted early for a bargain basement price.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I do not support operating fixed wing aircraft of RAN platforms at all, if the they are operated off a LHD or god forbid a QE.

I got involved in this thread because it’s hypothetical. We would only need to acquire a carrier capability if the RAN’s mission was much bigger than it currently is. So no real need to rationalise.

I agree that there is a serious deficiency in NGS for the ADAS. I have a paper in the works on this matter with a conceptional and technical solution not just for NGS during landing but a full sea basing of the landing force’s joint fires requirement.

The other element a carrier provides is over the horizon AAW. With AWD, SM-6 and Wedgetail this is provided. In those situations were the fleet may be out of range of Wedgetail the AEW coverage can be provided by something as unintrusive as 3-6 Fire Scouts with Telephonics AN/AP-143B radars.

 

[SASWanabe]

i just found this

U.K. Said to Cut Lockheed F-35s on One Carrier, Put Helicopters on Another - Bloomberg

Looks like PoW is the one their gonna keep and QE is going to possibly be sold, their also gonna lose HMS Ocean. my reading of this says after 2020 the brits will only have 1 Helicopter carrier and 1 Carrier of the same design, they cant be seious can they?

if we did buy QE would we not have a greater naval strike ability to them?

what about if we bought a cheap Bay class and QE? Thats a pretty awesome Naval capability by anyones definition...
and would probably be possible for cheap chippies with some of the choices the UK governments been making in regards to defence lately

 

[swerve]

That is press speculation from a few days ago about the contents of the UK SDSR - which has since been published. I suggest you read it (text here) before commenting further.

BTW, it's based on the Daily Telegraph article you linked to earlier.

 

[SASWanabe]

sorry, heres revised after reading the review again... HMS Ark royal Scrapped HMS Illustrious No longer operate fixed wing aircraft HMS Invincible's fate isnt mentioned (Probably the Same as Illustrious). One Bay to be Decommissioned. 4 less frigates

HMS Ocean will probably be decommisioned because of age so...

2 small helicopter carriers, 1 large helicopter carrier, 13 Frigates, 6 Destroyers, 3 Bays, 2 albions and 1 Super carrier. if they dont sell QE

that about sums up RN Major Surface Combatant strength doesnt it?

 

[StingrayOZ]

At what point would the RAN need a carrier?

US starts cutting carriers (mothballing or skipping builds) to save money?
Chinese start a war? Or atleast step up from economics to something more physical.
Serious instability in the region?
At what point do we really need to project power out from our continent?

I wouldn't say NGS is useless, just limited.

I wouldn't completely rule out Australia buying the QE or atleast kicking its tyres. Its a while off yet, the RAN is structured so we could at a big push take on a QE, we have operated a carrier before, regionally we are under a lot more pressure than the UK is, our economy is still very strong. If our currency moves forward, UK moves down, things heat out regionally. Its still highly unlikely but not impossible.

Who else is going to buy the dam thing? China?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

At what point would the RAN need a carrier?

If our strategic planning for potential engagements for our amphibious expeditionary force was upgraded from medium intensity to high intensity (strike carrier). Or if we were to face a much larger submarine threat to sea lines of trade (ASW carrier).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

2 small helicopter carriers, 1 large helicopter carrier, 13 Frigates, 6 Destroyers, 3 Bays, 2 albions and 1 Super carrier. if they dont sell QE

that about sums up RN Major Surface Combatant strength doesnt it?

Depends on your time stamp. But the ‘small helicopter carriers’ are going. Apparently Ocean will be kept around so as to back fill until both QEs are available. If one of the QEs is sold then it will probably be kept on to end of life. One of the Albions is to be mothballed.

Future Force 2020 says the following:

1 CVA, 6 DDG, 13 FF, 1 LPD, 3 LSD

Extended Readiness (Mothballed):

1 LPD

The second carrier will either be mothballed alongside as a helicopter carrier (no CATOBAR) or in refit to CATOBAR capability until about 2024 or sold.

To provide further insurance against unpredictable changes in that strategic environment, our current plan is to hold one of the two new carriers at extended readiness. That leaves open options to rotate them, to ensure a continuous UK carrier-strike capability; or to re-generate more quickly a two-carrier strike capability. Alternatively, we might sell one of the carriers, relying on cooperation with a close ally to provide continuous carrier-strike capability. The next strategic defence and security review in 2015 will provide an opportunity to review these options as the future strategic environment develops.

 

[OpinionNoted]

Or if we were to face a much larger submarine threat to sea lines of trade (ASW carrier).

And id assume an expanded china sub fleet is a closer reality than their carrier ambitions.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

And id assume an expanded china sub fleet is a closer reality than their carrier ambitions.

While it gets a lot of press the PLAN's submarine fleet is still a very long way from the Soviet Navy at its peak. They only have 7 SSNs in gross total and how many are actually in service would be lower because the oldest is 36 years. While about half of their 40 odd SSs are suited for out of area operations (mostly Kilos) they are still a long way from sustaining a threat to Australian trade lanes. The Soviet Navy had some 88 attack submarines in the Pacific Fleet in the 80s with a far high proportion being nuclear.