A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[AegisFC]

Further many AEGIS ships (including the Hobart class) have a SPQ-9 radar integrated to provide enhanced X Band horizon crossing scanning.

SPQ-9B is being integrated in all the US Aegis ships in the CruiserMod and DDGMod programs and it is being installed on most large surface combatants.

That’s a very misleading statement and conclusion. On a DDG-51 only one face out of four transmits at any one split second (CG two out of four) but the system power shares the four arrays so they are each doing many multiple scans per second.

Small quibble. SPY-1D(V) can "dual beam" out 2 opposite array faces, effectively doubling the scan rate.

 

[Jaimito]

That is reasuring to know.

I regret having offered an alternative to spending money on a carrier force. I should have just said that it would stretch resources too far and let it at that. It would seem to be a pretty difficult task to meet on going costs as well as taking on all the current projects, let alone a new big project, with the current budget.

Actually I was thinking a bit beyond naval missiles. Missile production would be part of building up an areospace industry. I am very impressed with Japan's efforts in space exploration, particularly the Ikaros solar sail mission. We could do that sort of thing too. I suppose it is just a wishful thinking as the carrier idea, given the government is more interested in subsidising middle class life style than anything else. There are a lot of worthwhile activities around the country that are starved for funds. Our antartic missions are an example.

I appologise for distracting the discussion with my silly suggestion.

So are you meaning doing path for Ballistic Missile Offensive Capability with that "missile and more aerospace" comment? Long range Collins 2 missions done in other way (just put a rocket to collins 2, in shape). Other option give F35b´s, the special ones, to cover the Ran.

 

[Jaimito]

Its not a silly suggestion. I like most posters here agree with you that carriers are not high on the ADF's needs agenda. Its just missile production is not high on the alternatives agenda.

Looking the expenditures agenda in the next years:
-3rd sealift?
-tanker?
-8-10 Anzacs 2.
-8-10 subs.
The price unit of these assets, is equilavent to a F35b airwing of x jets, say 1 Anzac 2 is 600 mill. $, equivalent to 10 F35b´s, if unit price is 60 mill. $. With so many sea assets to replace, maybe they could fit to asign that budget to the F35b and delay the sea asset substituted.

Other way for acquiring F35b is via change the F35a batch, for some F35b, how they serve better to Australian interest? There can be conflicts far away, in the middle of the ocean, or near Australia, this simply is a capability to put a F35b runway wherever you want. It´s force-strategical multiplier with all the other assets.

EDIT: or even both ways for buying F35b´s, and so instead of having 10 F35b´s, be able to deploy 20 F35b´s and still have 90 F35a´s for Raaf.
Actually the prices per unit don´t mean the total prices of maintenance, spares..

 

[icelord]

Looking the expenditures agenda in the next years:
-3rd sealift?
-tanker?
-8-10 Anzacs 2.
-8-10 subs.
The price unit of these assets, is equilavent to a F35b airwing of x jets, say 1 Anzac 2 is 600 mill. $, equivalent to 10 F35b´s, if unit price is 60 mill. $. With so many sea assets to replace, maybe they could fit to asign that budget to the F35b and delay the sea asset substituted.

Other way for acquiring F35b is via change the F35a batch, for some F35b, how they serve better to Australian interest? There can be conflicts far away, in the middle of the ocean, or near Australia, this simply is a capability to put a F35b runway wherever you want. It´s force-strategical multiplier with all the other assets.

EDIT: or even both ways for buying F35b´s, and so instead of having 10 F35b´s, be able to deploy 20 F35b´s and still have 90 F35a´s for Raaf.
Actually the prices per unit don´t mean the total prices of maintenance, spares..

Thats a little simpistic view, one thats crushing the UK Armed forces at the moment. the whole "for the same price" argument is pathetic, wow you get 10 fighters for one Anzac(uhuh, no where near that much in real price value)
You dont take Navy money to put into Air force assests, by doing this we lead ourselves open to entire ADF cuts for another service, and when that service needs something you take from the other, and they lose capability.
Dont confuse F35B purchases with taking away ships. What will protect a carrier if the flightdeck is U/S? The navy doesnt purchase helos at the sacrafice of a surface ship as thats poor management...long term use of a ship trumps any aircraft.

 

[Sea Toby]

Thats a little simpistic view, one thats crushing the UK Armed forces at the moment. the whole "for the same price" argument is pathetic, wow you get 10 fighters for one Anzac(uhuh, no where near that much in real price value)
You dont take Navy money to put into Air force assests, by doing this we lead ourselves open to entire ADF cuts for another service, and when that service needs something you take from the other, and they lose capability.
Dont confuse F35B purchases with taking away ships. What will protect a carrier if the flightdeck is U/S? The navy doesnt purchase helos at the sacrafice of a surface ship as thats poor management...long term use of a ship trumps any aircraft.

Agreed, so much for long term planning of acquisitions. Trading ships for more aircraft with the slight of a hand. Defence planning reduced to a shell game...

 

[Jaimito]

Thats a little simpistic view, one thats crushing the UK Armed forces at the moment. the whole "for the same price" argument is pathetic, wow you get 10 fighters for one Anzac(uhuh, no where near that much in real price value)
You dont take Navy money to put into Air force assests, by doing this we lead ourselves open to entire ADF cuts for another service, and when that service needs something you take from the other, and they lose capability.
Dont confuse F35B purchases with taking away ships. What will protect a carrier if the flightdeck is U/S? The navy doesnt purchase helos at the sacrafice of a surface ship as thats poor management...long term use of a ship trumps any aircraft.

There are different numbers for subs program, the Ran might end up with 12 Collins 2, or 8, or 6 Astutes, etc, so in the case of subs there is that flexibility to accept what the budget gives. Overall these navy assets there is the budget intention to spend less money, so budget might be a question of will. Maybe number of Anzacs is more strict to have or to replace than decide a number of subs. Number of hight intensity warfare ships, number of minor war vessel ships, what are useful for each of these? You might consider not to spend money in minor war vessel and spend it in F35b´s, or if the outcome for Anzac 2 is medium-high-minor war vessel.
Poor management or not it depends on how you value having those aircrafts wrt other assets.

 

[icelord]

There are different numbers for subs program, the Ran might end up with 12 Collins 2, or 8, or 6 Astutes, etc, so in the case of subs there is that flexibility to accept what the budget gives. Overall these navy assets there is the budget intention to spend less money, so budget might be a question of will. Maybe number of Anzacs is more strict to have or to replace than decide a number of subs. Number of hight intensity warfare ships, number of minor war vessel ships, what are useful for each of these? You might consider not to spend money in minor war vessel and spend it in F35b´s, or if the outcome for Anzac 2 is medium-high-minor war vessel.
Poor management or not it depends on how you value having those aircrafts wrt other assets.

I can rule out Astutes now, as the RAN is looking at something around Collins size and non-nuclear. Im happy to put doubt on 12 collins MKII, as it would need a bigger change in the fleet manning and use then what is currently underway.
Headquarters will always put more Anzacs on the surface then Subs in the water, the role and flexibility of a 'skimmer' is that much more different to a subs.
Navy has a role to defend australia, and protect the nations interest(its on every Navy car) The defence of the realm so to speak is provided by a mix of surface ships, subs and Air force assets. To then move away from Aus you require surface vessels. While keeping within the context of the topic, a carrier will need protection, this is provided by ships, subs can be utilised, but a ship is the number one defensive asset. You take that away so that you get 5 more aircraft on the carrier, then you lack proper coverage. Thats why when deploying a Aircraft Carrier they like to send them in a group, with a mix of units to allow coverage for the carrier to rely on its own task at hand, and the surface fleet to provide defence. What im getting at is why take away ship numbers in the name of a few aircraft This low cost approach does little for the ADF as a whole and in fact lowers its ability to respond to emergencys, all in the name of a few more pilots with wings.
There will always be a MWV fleet, and the better the numbers the better the coverage. They are cheap, somewhat reliable vessels that provide a strong "coast Guard" role in protect the northern area. By assigning a MFU you are wasting few, resources and sea time on an asset better utilised and trained up ready for deployments off the aus station. 10 F35Bs wont stop illegal fisherman, or save a yachtsman from sinking.

 

[Jaimito]

I can rule out Astutes now, as the RAN is looking at something around Collins size and non-nuclear. Im happy to put doubt on 12 collins MKII, as it would need a bigger change in the fleet manning and use then what is currently underway.
Headquarters will always put more Anzacs on the surface then Subs in the water, the role and flexibility of a 'skimmer' is that much more different to a subs.
Navy has a role to defend australia, and protect the nations interest(its on every Navy car) The defence of the realm so to speak is provided by a mix of surface ships, subs and Air force assets. To then move away from Aus you require surface vessels. While keeping within the context of the topic, a carrier will need protection, this is provided by ships, subs can be utilised, but a ship is the number one defensive asset. You take that away so that you get 5 more aircraft on the carrier, then you lack proper coverage. Thats why when deploying a Aircraft Carrier they like to send them in a group, with a mix of units to allow coverage for the carrier to rely on its own task at hand, and the surface fleet to provide defence. What im getting at is why take away ship numbers in the name of a few aircraft This low cost approach does little for the ADF as a whole and in fact lowers its ability to respond to emergencys, all in the name of a few more pilots with wings.
There will always be a MWV fleet, and the better the numbers the better the coverage. They are cheap, somewhat reliable vessels that provide a strong "coast Guard" role in protect the northern area. By assigning a MFU you are wasting few, resources and sea time on an asset better utilised and trained up ready for deployments off the aus station. 10 F35Bs wont stop illegal fisherman, or save a yachtsman from sinking.

That is a good point, coast guard and strong coast guards, to be decided between OPV and Anzacs 2, and in Anzac between say Auspar and Ceafar, those in Ceafar could be fullfilled with stronger OPV? And so save an Anzac Hull free? But that Anzac hull can be wanted by its Asw despite being with Ceafar or minor war vessel suite...
I find it hard the Ran goes for jets, but at least some F35bs is a major step up vs navies with just helos or Uavs, and it is another major step up for land projection strike for any deployment or autonomous land attack , and possibly a step up vs navies with carriers and no F35b´s :hippie

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Australian & New Zealand Warships Since 1945 by Ross Gillett 1988.

Wikipedea… Anyway the best published source on the trials of the post war Army water transport branch is Brig. Greville’s multi volume history of the RAE 45-72 Volume IV has a chapter on the transport branch and details all the going ons of LSM Mk II.

The National Archives have a fair bit of info on the DDL project,

Also in the National Archives and closer to the original thread were the RANs unsuccessful attempts to acquire a strike carrier during the 60s

Ahh yeah… and who was the guy who found both, pdfed them and posted them online in various forums over a year ago?

The National Archives have a fair bit of info on the DDL project, including the fact it started out as requirement for a large class of ships not dis-similar to the OCV. The idea was for these ships to free up the frigate and mine sweepers that were being seconded to the sea control mission in SEA. They were to have a medium calibre gun, helicopter facilities and a self defence anti aircraft capability.

Not quite. The original DDL was completely different to the OCV beyond numbers required. The concept was for large numbers of small ships heavily armed with guns (2 127mm, 4 30mm) so as to provide wide and effective maritime interdiction (MIO) coverage. This was based on all the experience of WWII, the Indonesian Confrontation and the VietNam War and was targeted against small vessels used en masse for logistics. However someone demonstrated that you need far less ships by providing the MIO search function with helicopters so the DDL grew so as to accommodate two Lynx helos. Also added was a Tartar air defence system so it could survive in the face of any medium level air threat.

Another RAN requirement at the time was the need in the 70s to provide a big boost in sea postings for officers to keep their expanded workforce employed. DDL was to provide this but they were able to steal the Army’s LCH fleet for this role. So rather than be commanded by an Army WO each LCH had a LEUT, SLT and so on. As soon as the Fremantles came online most of the cargo role LCHs (the rest were used for diving and hydro) were laid up entirely depriving the Army of the cargo fleet it needed and had paid for… The Navy only restored them to the sealift role when East Timor forced their hand.

 

[Volkodav]

Ahh yeah… and who was the guy who found both, pdfed them and posted them online in various forums over a year ago?

Don't have a clue to be honest, but from the apparent rhetorical nature of the question, I dare say you have made a reference somewhere or other.

I actually came across the reference to the National Archives while researching CVA-01 and can’t remember the forum, author or even whether it was online, in a book or a journal, but it definitely wasn’t a pdf as I had to actually go into the NA site to search the documents that had been referenced. It wasn’t what I was looking for but I had a poke around before getting back to my paper.

Found it: NavWeaps.com.au posted by NewGolconda, 2 November 2009, if that’s you I owe you an acknowledgement. Google can be useful.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Don't have a clue to be honest, but from the apparent rhetorical nature of the question, I dare say you have made a reference somewhere or other.

I'm not confirming anything because copying NAA material would be breach of their copyright.

I actually came across the reference to the National Archives while researching CVA-01

Really? This is the only digital document in the entire NAA that refers to CVA-01... Seems like a strange search to stumble across...

Found it: NavWeaps.com.au posted by NewGolconda, 2 November 2009, if that’s you I owe you an acknowledgement. Google can be useful.

The way the NAA online archive works is some good soul pays for them to digitise an archive and they then place it online for everyone else. So several researchers can find a document at around the same time.

Australia’s 1964 Replacement Carrier Plan

I can't find the DDL link at secret projects, this forum and T5C because the search engines aren't precise enough and I'm not going through three years of back posts in the RAN thread to find it...

 

[Volkodav]

Really? This is the only digital document in the entire NAA that refers to CVA-01... Seems like a strange search to stumble across...

Thats what caught my eye, I had no idea we had looked at the CVA01 and when I saw the RAN reference I just couldn't help myself and went to have a look. Once in there I decided to read up on other areas of interest, I found some (DDL) but not others, (Jaguar, Hermes, Eagle, the post war armoured division etc).

Real work has kept me pretty busy most of this year so I haven't been back to do any more digging, but it is on my list of things to do when I have time.

There a lot of leads I have from the news section of old Flight Magazines at uni and from conversations with ex servicemen that I would like to chase up but never seem to have the time.

 

[aussienscale]

I'm not confirming anything because copying NAA material would be breach of their copyright.



Really? This is the only digital document in the entire NAA that refers to CVA-01... Seems like a strange search to stumble across...



The way the NAA online archive works is some good soul pays for them to digitise an archive and they then place it online for everyone else. So several researchers can find a document at around the same time.

Australia’s 1964 Replacement Carrier Plan

I can't find the DDL link at secret projects, this forum and T5C because the search engines aren't precise enough and I'm not going through three years of back posts in the RAN thread to find it...

Was just wondering, I have read in forums, but have not seen any firm confirmation, that Australia was offered the SCS plans but rejected them which were then subsequently sold to Spain resulting in the PDA ?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Was just wondering, I have read in forums, but have not seen any firm confirmation, that Australia was offered the SCS plans but rejected them which were then subsequently sold to Spain resulting in the PDA ?

The Australian Centenary History of Defence series volume on the RAN provides quite a bit of detail of the last attempt to replace the Melbourne. This whole series actually has quite a bit of detail of various force options considered by the Navy, Army and RAAF in 20th century. The 1977 initiative as detailed in the RAN centenary history is summarised in Wikipedia as:

The need to secure a replacement for Melbourne grew as the carrier's age caused the operating costs to increase to over AU$25 million (approximately AU$89.5 million in 2007 terms) per year. In June 1977, the Defence Force Development Committee approved an investigation into acquiring a STOVL/helicopter carrier. By August 1979, the decision was limited to three ships: a modified American Iwo Jima class amphibious assault ship, an Italian Giuseppe Garibaldi class carrier, and a Sea Control Ship design that later became the Spanish Navy's Principe de Asturias. By February 1981, the Iwo Jima class was the preferred option.

The Invincible class was not in the short list because it was much more expensive to buy brand new or build than the alternatives. Then, continuing the Wikipedia summary of the RAN centenary history:

Plans to replace Melbourne changed in July 1981, when the recently commissioned HMS Invincible was announced as surplus to requirements and offered to the RAN for the 'bargain' price of GB£175 million (AU$285 million in 1981 and approximately AU$840 million in 2007 terms). The Invincible class had been considered and discarded during the investigation, but the decreased price and the fact the already-constructed carrier would be ready for RAN service in 1983 prompted the Australian government to announce its intention to purchase Invincible on 25 February 1982 and close the carrier acquisition program. The government also announced that the ship would be renamed HMAS Australia and operated as a helicopter carrier, and that a decision on the purchase of Sea Harriers would be made after acquisition.

The acquisition of the Invincible was very advanced by the time the Falklands intervened. The Australian crew had been assembled and was basically a few weeks from flying to the UK to sail the Invincible back to Australia.

In relation to the Sea Control Ship a ‘copy’ of the plans was sold to Spain in 1977 and in no way precluded Australia purchasing the design. The SCS would have made an idea Melbourne replacement that could be built in Australia. Unfortunately the Defence hierarchy in Australia had many of its fleet recapitalisation projects in a terrible mess. As much lamented in many occasions by RAN Admirals the prority was building fleet support ships before building the fleet they had to support! So while there was no carrier program underway in the late 1970s there was a (disastrous) project to build the Durance class oilers at Cockatoo Island. The cost of which could easily have covered a SCS which would have been a much easier build program. And so went the Australian carrier capability a victim like so many Australian defence capabilities of bad management.

 

[aussienscale]

Thanks for that, I knew the SCS was in the frey, but was not sure how it tied in to the events of the time. So do you think that had we got Invincible that it would probably only have ever been used as a Helicopter carrier anyway ? So going down that potential timeframe are we now back at the position of replacing the Invincible with the Canberra Class in terms of ability anyway ? Just with an avoidable gap in between ?

Just a side note on the Durance Class (Success), I note that it is to be double hulled in Singapore ? Seems like a waste of money ? but we are obviously constrained by international requirements for double hulling anyway, has anyone seen any reference to what implications this will have on Success' capacity ? and has there been any firm favourites for her replacement suggested as yet ?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Thanks for that, I knew the SCS was in the frey, but was not sure how it tied in to the events of the time. So do you think that had we got Invincible that it would probably only have ever been used as a Helicopter carrier anyway ? So going down that potential timeframe are we now back at the position of replacing the Invincible with the Canberra Class in terms of ability anyway ? Just with an avoidable gap in between ?

If the Falklands War happened to the original Argentine schedule (in summer of 82/83) or never at all and HMS Invincible became HMAS Australia then a Sea Harrier squadron would have been purchased. The flip side is no new Seahawks. The capability argument made by the incoming Hawke government was that the RAN could afford either a new carrier or the ASW helicopters for the FFGs. The political argument being that it was foolish to acquire a carrier when the frigates did not even have their basic weapons fitout (Seahawks). Though of course the RAN would have much preferred a new carrier with Sea Harriers rather than a new ASW helicopter. S-70B-2 Seahawks with onboard acoustic processors are very expensive helicopters and would have roughly been cost equal to a Sea Harrier buy.

Just a side note on the Durance Class (Success), I note that it is to be double hulled in Singapore ? Seems like a waste of money ? but we are obviously constrained by international requirements for double hulling anyway, has anyone seen any reference to what implications this will have on Success' capacity ? and has there been any firm favourites for her replacement suggested as yet ?

Australia is under no obligation to double hull the Success as military vessels are exempt from the new international requirements. However it is the desire of the government to be compliant. So it looks like Success will be sailed into scrap like other RAN ships rather than be replaced at end of life.

The firmest favourite for a new RAN AOR was the US Navy’s Lewis and Clark T-AKE ship. But that was a few years ago before the project was put on the backburner until 2020ish.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Australia is under no obligation to double hull the Success as military vessels are exempt from the new international requirements.

mil vessels can still be refused access by a host nation though - and thats the other concern. Alexsa should be able to expand upon this...

 

[aussienscale]

So it looks like Success will be sailed into scrap like other RAN ships rather than be replaced at end of life. .

Have you ever watched the show Scrapyard Challenge

 

[Volkodav]

Have you ever watched the show Scrapyard Challenge

One of my favorites as well as one of my wifes greatest fears....

On the failed Invincible acquisition there are a number of gems I have come across over the years:
• The UK approached Australia, post Falklands, to build a pair of Round Table class LSLs to replace their war losses in exchange for them building us an Invincible. This was a case of optimising resources as they were currently building Invincibles and we had recently built an LSL (UK production had completed over a decade earlier). This arrangement would have reduced the costs for both parties.
• Had a new carrier been acquired the Seakings, with their dipping sonars, would have been retained in the ASW role permitting a cheaper type to be purchased to operate from the FFGs.
• Choosing the Lynx or Seasprite to operate from the FFGs would have permitted the expensive modification of the first three FFGs to operate Seahawks to be avoided. I don’t have the figures at hand but this modification was significant, I believe it was more than the discounted purchase price for Invincible.
• Hermes was offered for loan and / or sale to enable us to remain in the carrier business until the new ship was ready.

Roll in the various savings,
• no Seahawks,
• no FFG modifications,
• retaining existing capabilities,
• not bothering to build the final pair of FFGs
• the offset factor of building two LSLs in Australia for the RFA

and replacing Melbourne could well have been a cheaper option than trying to set up the RAN to operate effectively without a carrier.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Hermes was offered for loan and / or sale to enable us to remain in the carrier business until the new ship was ready.

Hermes and SHAR was offered as part of a post Falklands deal for Australia to buy a new build 4th Invincible from the UK. Basically Hermes would be for free for the cost of the SHARs and the new build carrier.