A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[aussienscale]

She would be hard to put to bed being an ex oiler, especially considering the carry on before Canberra was laid to rest. There was a pretty loud lobby trying to stop it due to contamination fears etc (the usual tripe), also on previous ships like the Hobart as well
Alang beach could be a good bet ? but if it did become an artificial, would love to dive it, it would still look like I remember it, rusty

 

[Abraham Gubler]

She would be hard to put to bed being an ex oiler, especially considering the carry on before Canberra was laid to rest.

I would imagine it might be easier to decontam. Because the tanks are much bigger it would be easier to get crews in there to do the work. But certainly if they cut it open it would be amazing to dive into.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Success won't retire until around 2020.

Tot the plan was to replace the success in 2015 and then sirius in 2020 with a purpose built vessel...

Since the number of ex surplus military AORs that have entered commercial use as tankers or even static tankers is currently running at a steady state of zero it’s a pretty fair call to say that Success will have the same post service career path.

Depends. Purpose-built replenishment oilers doesn't exactly have a long service history. Most replenishment tankers used in the past by most navies were tanker conversions. But agreed, can't find an example of a dedicated oiler being converted to a tanker at this time.

Not stating that its not a fair possibility that it will end up stricken or scrapped. Equally important from a historical perspective is none of those got double hulled at age 24.

However, you're not stating its a fair possibility. You're stating that its a virtual certainty that it can't be used as a tanker. That imho is not unfeasible. Its not a pet theory but a question of technical feasibility. Just because replenishment ships get scrapped does not invalidate the possibility.

Also almost every ship with long service histories in the RAN in recent years has been disposed of as a dive wreck so it’s a fair bet that the same fate awaits Success. She just might not need as much in the way of demolition charges to get to the sea floor…

Agreed, and the key word is almost. Just as the most recent example of the Westralia which incidentally was itself bought from the RFA, a commercial onsale is possible. Considering that most of other Durance class tankers are still in use, the question of how much hull life is left has to be asked.

But please ’62 feel free to hold your pet theory. It’s just unreasonable to expect the rest of us to not shoot holes in it when it just doesn’t add up. Don’t take it personally but.

As usual, I do not begrudge anyone their opinions, however incorrect it may be nor do I expect them to agree. However, just stating my opinion that for Success to be used as a tanker is not an impossibility, at least on technical grounds. I haven't read anything that suggests otherwise that would change that opinion, with due respect to your highlighting the lack of historical precedent.

Cheers!

 

[aussienscale]

I would imagine it might be easier to decontam. Because the tanks are much bigger it would be easier to get crews in there to do the work. But certainly if they cut it open it would be amazing to dive into.

Actually that's probably true enough, did not take that into account. We could always drag her up onto Cockatoo island as a permanemt reminder of how thing should be done nfloorl:

 

[Volkodav]

Actually that's probably true enough, did not take that into account. We could always drag her up onto Cockatoo island as a permanemt reminder of how thing should be done nfloorl:

Got to wonder if replacing her would be cheaper long term than double hulling her and paying increasing upkeep costs for an extra ten years.

In fact, considering how hard we tend to work our ships, life extending any of them is probably of dubious value. We would probably be better off replacing the majority of our hulls at 15 to 20 years and on sell them without having paid for a major, or mid life upgrade,

 

[jawaboy]

What would be the chances of the RAN buying HMS Ark Royal and an air group of Harriers?

And would it make sense for them to do so?

 

[spoz]

What would be the chances of the RAN buying HMS Ark Royal and an air group of Harriers?

And would it make sense for them to do so?

It would have been a good idea in 1982 when Fraser gave Inevitable back to Maggie (the posting was in my hand!!). In 2010 it would be just plain stupid; a what, 26 year old hull and orphan aircraft without the ability to defend themselves properly? - the GR9 is a bomb truck ; the FR2s have been out of service too long and in any case are probably well and truly obsolete. Plus we would have difficulty manning her. Plus all her systems are RN based whereas we use mainly USN based. Plus there is currently no appetite at any real level of government or the ADF to acquire such a capability (and I'm an ex carrier sailor so I'm predisposed to favour the idea; comments from some other parts of the sponge would be much less complimentary.....)

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Ark Royal would make a great short term buy to fill the capability gap left through the mechanical breakdown of our two LPAs. However even this is extremely unlikely and it would not be used as a carrier but as a LPH to carry Army helos, trucks and soldiers from A to B.

 

[spoz]

Ark Royal would make a great short term buy to fill the capability gap left through the mechanical breakdown of our two LPAs. However even this is extremely unlikely and it would not be used as a carrier but as a LPH to carry Army helos, trucks and soldiers from A to B.

You think? With RR engines instead of GE; RN not RAN sensors, combat and comms systems; no comms to our friends who formerly dressed in green; and the ships company required? My understanding is that the ME department alone is well over 200; and when you do get her the only way to disembark the grunts and their kit is by helo.

Ocean might be a better bet if available although I understand from some friends in the UK that she might not have been the greatest bit of shipbuilding the Poms have ever done; and in any case they seem to be planning on keeping her.

But for either of them, they'd need, what 12 months in dockyard hands and how many additional $M to get to a state where we could use them, that's after the project planning has been done - you might see her operational about the same time Canberra shows up.... And in the case of Ark, given her age, she would only be usable for a few years.

If you want to go the quick fix you're better off looking for a Bay and negotiating the release date with the RFA. You've still got the compatibility problems, but at least it's a fairly new ship , we do know something about Wartsila engines and they can get by with a reasonable ship's company; and given their present fairly sparse fit out you would mostly be adding things rather than replacing them (which, trust me, is easier).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You think?

Yep. The objective is not to integrate Ark Royal into the RAN as a long term asset. But to have a seaworthy, mechanically reliable ship capable of doing at least part of the mission over the next four years until the LHDs are available. While the LPAs are busy making rust dockside perfect is the enemy of good enough.

With RR engines instead of GE; RN not RAN sensors, combat and comms systems; no comms to our friends who formerly dressed in green; and the ships company required? My understanding is that the ME department alone is well over 200; and when you do get her the only way to disembark the grunts and their kit is by helo.

Again it doesn’t matter. Since the RN is disposing of the entire ship class they should have enough spares on hand for the GTs and radars for a four year life time. Comms gear can be migrated from the LPAs to the Ark Royal.

There is no way its ME dept can be 200 strong. Overall crew is only 685 and this crew has to include the large aviation engineering dept to support the flight deck and provide higher level supt to the air wing. Plus all the supply and hotel supt needed by the air wing. She only has four GTs (LM 2500 eqvuiv) and eight DGs so the engineering demand is not that much higher than a DDG type. I did have a ships brochure from Ark Royal somewhere that listed the crew breakdown amongst departments but must be in a box… Certainly Ark Royal could put to see as a LPH with the 440 RAN crew from the LPAs. Obviously would need to juggle the ME crew to get GT people onboard.

It is academic wether an LPH is not as good as a LPA for landing capability because the LPAs can’t land anything. Ark Royal could possible embark LCM8s via the forward deck crane. Certainly would have no problem with LCVPs, LARCs and the like. It could also carry large number of light vehicles in the forward half of the hangar. The aft hangar is more than enough for a squadron of Black Hawks. She could also operate ARH and CH-47s. As an aviation platform she would be equal to the LHD so would help both the RAN and Army train up to this capability. For any crisis intervention her helo force would be far more effective than the much smaller capability supported by two LPAs.

Ocean might be a better bet if available although I understand from some friends in the UK that she might not have been the greatest bit of shipbuilding the Poms have ever done; and in any case they seem to be planning on keeping her.

Ark Royal is available now, Ocean isn’t.

But for either of them, they'd need, what 12 months in dockyard hands and how many additional $M to get to a state where we could use them, that's after the project planning has been done - you might see her operational about the same time Canberra shows up.... And in the case of Ark, given her age, she would only be usable for a few years.

As I mentioned above, nope. The objective is a hot hand over and straight into service. Army comms gear can be added wharf side and any modifications kept to the minimum. Ark Royal is just fresh out of a major refit which should see her through to 2014-15 without need for any dock work. Then she can be disposed of as the LHDs come online.

If you want to go the quick fix you're better off looking for a Bay and negotiating the release date with the RFA. You've still got the compatibility problems, but at least it's a fairly new ship , we do know something about Wartsila engines and they can get by with a reasonable ship's company; and given their present fairly sparse fit out you would mostly be adding things rather than replacing them (which, trust me, is easier).

The Bays are nice but apparently one won’t be available until March 2012. A bird in hand is worth two in the tree…

 

[t68]

If by some chance that the LHD where delayed for quite some time it might be feasibly to loan her just for training purpose so that defence can have some real world experience with large aircraft formations off an LPH. But it’s not feasibly her machinery space are labour intensive and obsolete with no correlation in transitioning to a Canberra class her communication set up is different

By all accounts i think the only way we would get any harrier is if the government in their wisdom on defence where to accept that the LHD need fixed wing CAS support (IMO they do) for the embarked forces and then only if the if the F35B where to scraped to save money on the project and only A/C JSF built which i cannot see happening as the harrier in service with the UK/USMC are nearing their fatigue limits, the UK can get away with the C model but the USMC cannot as Wasp/America class are too small for cat and trap set up, even though America class is comparable in displacement to a Midway class carrier, a America class is approximately 40m shorter than Midway in their original build but where extensively modified in the 1950’s and where given angled decks and fitted with cat and trap operated and where able to handle F4 Phantom jets and F/A-18 Hornet but only Midway was able to operate F 14 Tomcat aircraft as she was modified again in the last 1960’s and in the end where comparable in size to what a Queen Elizabeth will be with the same amount of jet aircraft to operate from.

 

[t68]

Yep. The objective is not to integrate Ark Royal into the RAN as a long term asset. But to have a seaworthy, mechanically reliable ship capable of doing at least part of the mission over the next four years until the LHDs are available. While the LPAs are busy making rust dockside perfect is the enemy of good enough.

The Bays are nice but apparently one won’t be available until March 2012. A bird in hand is worth two in the tree…

If that was to be the case in theory HMS Ark Royal could be used as a stop gap filler for both LPA in the short term, how hard would it be if the dreaded cancer where not too bad, how hard would it be to reengineer the machinery space to the same spec or similar to a Canberra class, and have a 20 F35b fly off her in support of Canberra class. If as you say the combat and coms gear will already be fitted out from the LPA, all that would be needed once the LHD comes on line is to reengineering the machinery space.

Would the money spent justify having a single light carrier for CAS and fleet support to a task force?

 

[spoz]

. Overall crew is only 685 and this crew has to include the large aviation engineering dept to support the flight deck and provide higher level supt to the air wing.…

Well, the last time I was onboard I'm pretty sure the PoB was in excess of 1100 with 350 or so in the air group.

From the perspective of foreign equipment I'm actually more concerned with how you would train an RAN ships company to safely operate and maintain the ship than with the supply of spares. However, you hold to your opinion and I'll hold to mine - I'm just glad I don't have the project to acquire her on my slops chit.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well, the last time I was onboard I'm pretty sure the PoB was in excess of 1100 with 350 or so in the air group.

Yeah and the air group is just the squadrons. Flight control, the flight deck, higher level maintenance, aviation stores, etc are all part of the ships's crew of <700.

I found the crew breakdown by department for Ark Royal. It is:

Total: 678
Warfare: 230
Marine Eng: 149
Weps Eng: 27
Air Eng: 54
Supply: 129
Health: 14
Air: 54
Other: 20

Of course this doesn’t help working out how much a LPH only Ark Royal would need for crew as much of these departments includes crew for strike fighter operation. This would slash the warfare, supply and air departments. In an LPH role she would only need a crew of 400-450 without compromising the high level of MEs (~150) who are no doubt in large numbers caught up in keeping all the ship’s non propulsion equipment operating. The lifts, hangar fire suppression, air conditioning, etc.

From the perspective of foreign equipment I'm actually more concerned with how you would train an RAN ships company to safely operate and maintain the ship than with the supply of spares. However, you hold to your opinion and I'll hold to mine - I'm just glad I don't have the project to acquire her on my slops chit.

Sure. I never said it would be easy to commission Ark Royal into the RAN but it would be feasible and potentially of lower risk than trying to rebuild the LPAs.

 

[spoz]

Yeah and the air group is just the squadrons. Flight control, the flight deck, higher level maintenance, aviation stores, etc are all part of the ships's crew of <700.
.

Yes, aware of what the air group consists of, have served in carriers a bit. The CAG would also includes the CAG commander, if there is one, and any staff he might bring with him.

I found the crew breakdown by department for Ark Royal. It is:

Total: 678
Warfare: 230
Marine Eng: 149
Weps Eng: 27
Air Eng: 54
Supply: 129
Health: 14
Air: 54
Other: 20

Of course this doesn’t help working out how much a LPH only Ark Royal would need for crew as much of these departments includes crew for strike fighter operation. This would slash the warfare, supply and air departments. In an LPH role she would only need a crew of 400-450 without compromising the high level of MEs (~150) who are no doubt in large numbers caught up in keeping all the ship’s non propulsion equipment operating. The lifts, hangar fire suppression, air conditioning, etc.

.

The air dept is CMDR Air, Little F, FDO, HCO and their offsiders with most of the rest being rats and bears I should think - you would probably want them whatever sort of a/c you were operating if it was any substantial number (an issue I believe 2048 are grappling with). WE dept looks small so they might be counting flight deck E & L in the air dept or more probably air eng. Too many PWOs and other assorted mullets though, by the look of it.

How old are your figures? Mine are certainly not that new; I was last in a CVS (visiting) about 10 years ago and it was Illustrious as a carrier with both fixed and rotary wing embarked which I guess might explain the difference; alternatively it might be efforts to lean out the ships company.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The air dept is CMDR Air, Little F, FDO, HCO and their offsiders with most of the rest being rats and bears I should think - you would probably want them whatever sort of a/c you were operating if it was any substantial number (an issue I believe 2048 are grappling with). WE dept looks small so they might be counting flight deck E & L in the air dept or more probably air eng. Too many PWOs and other assorted mullets though, by the look of it.

The size of an LPH's air department would be a lot smaller than that of a CVS because it has far less aircraft embarked and most if not all are Army. in the RN there isn't a CAG the sqn COs report to the Ship CO and Cmdr Air. The only level above F would be Staff Officer Aviation (STAVO) of a task group HQ located on the flagship. I doubt the AAAvn senior officer would appreciate a naval flight ops staff planning his missions for him... But running the flight deck and circuit would be the job of an LPH's air dept.

I too was perplexed by the lack of air eng personnel for the flight deck. But then again STOVL carriers require a lot less flight deck ops crew than CTOL. In the RN the flight deck crew are air eng like the RAN. On the balance side I doubt the RN CVS offers much in the way of higher level engineering to the air group unlike a USN CV.

How old are your figures? Mine are certainly not that new; I was last in a CVS (visiting) about 10 years ago and it was Illustrious as a carrier with both fixed and rotary wing embarked which I guess might explain the difference; alternatively it might be efforts to lean out the ships company.

The figures are from a comparision with CVF crewing so I assume are post Sea Dart removal upgrade.

The core issue is of course how much crew just to run the ship as an LPH? I still think ~400 is probably a good figure. Leaving some 1,100 accomodations (including the 500 overload) for all the extras for an embarked task group. All in all training issues aside a pretty reasonable - low impact, high capability retention - option to replace the two LPAs. Obviously not ideal but better than no LPAs for months/years depending on their rebuild.

 

[Sea Toby]

Since the ex-Newports are worn out, leasing the Ark Royal may be a good move for a short term stop gap measure using her similar to the old Sydney. Maybe mount a few davits for landing craft.

The better buy is a used Bay class landing ship as the third amphibious ship. I am sure much depends on the lease/purchase price for both used ships...

I fear the carrier advocates would stir the pot silly in their attempt to use the Ark Royal as a light carrier more than as a LPH...

If the Aussies do decide to receive the Ark Royal in a hot transfer, please keep her name as the Ark Royal. Its bad luck to change her name....

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Since the ex-Newports are worn out, leasing the Ark Royal may be a good move for a short term stop gap measure using her similar to the old Sydney. Maybe mount a few davits for landing craft.

Adding cranes and davits would require yard work and would be counter productive for a four year gap fill ship. Besides the Invincible class already has a crane and boat davits that could carry legacy ADF landing craft. Certainly the Western Boat Builders T1-8 LCVPs (now called “Stingray 13 SD”) used by the RAN.

The better buy is a used Bay class landing ship as the third amphibious ship. I am sure much depends on the lease/purchase price for both used ships...

Sure but there is a 16 month difference in availability. We’re not planning for the future just a gap fill. And while the Bay class does have a big tent thingy that provides a hangar it is very much deficient in aviation support compared to an Invincible class as LPH.

I fear the carrier advocates would stir the pot silly in their attempt to use the Ark Royal as a light carrier more than as a LPH...

Such will happen when the LHDs are in service anyway. Besides most of this pot stirring is outside the ADF’s kitchen so has little or no effect. The most vocal and over the top defence campaign in recent years was that run by Goon, Kopp, et al and it has ZERO net effect on the ADF’s force structure. Damaged the public reputation of the RAAF no end but ultimately that is of manageable effect.

If the Aussies do decide to receive the Ark Royal in a hot transfer, please keep her name as the Ark Royal. Its bad luck to change her name....

I doubt the acquisition of Ark Royal would ever happen and if it did there is little or no chance the name would be kept. RFA Appleleaf was renamed HMAS Westralia for its lease (later buy) and said name would probably be given to Ark Royal if it became a HMA Ship.

 

[riksavage]

The RAN should snap up the opportunity to take the Ark (probably get it at scrap value), use it as a evaluation/training platform to develop helo/commando doctrine prior to the arrival of the LHD's. The latest issue of Navy news (see link) shows the Ark being used to host Apache during recent joint exercises. It stows very nicely below decks with the rotors folded, substitute Apache with Tiger (assume someone makes the decision to go for a folding rotor set-up) and you have a pretty potent capability up and running until the first Canberra class arrives. If nothing else it would represent a useful tool to test future interoperability between the various services and help determine the best mix of assets.

Also includes details of the latest PACSCAT trial aboard Albion. That looks like a perfect fit for the new LHD's.

Navy News November 2010

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The RAN should snap up the opportunity to take the Ark (probably get it at scrap value), use it as a evaluation/training platform to develop helo/commado doctrine prior to the arrival of the LHD's. The latest issue of Navy news (see link) shows the Ark being used to host Apache during recent joint exercises. It stows very nicely below decks with the rotors folded, substitute Apache with Tiger (assume someone makes the decision to go for a folding rotor set-up) and you have a pretty potent capability up and running until the first Canberra class arrives. If nothing else it would represent a useful tool to test future interoperability between the various services and help determine the best mix of assets.

I don't think anyone is concerned about the cost of acquiring Ark Royal it is the cost of operating it. The RAN just does not have in its budget enough space for 400-500 sailors and a major fleet unit on top of current assets. Of course if you withdraw from service the LPAs you can use their budget and crew to sail the 'Ark Australial'. But as a training platform for flight deck operations it is far too expensive. We can work up those skills on the LHDs which are budgeted for when they arrive. As to doctrine that has been developed for a while, it’s the practical skills of operating a large flight deck that need to be re learnt.

Tiger ARH can fold its rotors just like the Apache. This is not an automatic process it just involves someone undoing one of the bolts used to attach the blade to the rotor hub and pivoting on the remaining bolt. AAAvn plans to operate a troop of ARH (2) from each LHD but not returning to the ship. The ARH will fly to shore and then lily pad from FARP to FARP. Because of the sea basing doctrine the LHDs will stay too far out to sea to sustain effective ARH operations. Any littoral engagements could be supported before a landing without folding rotors because of the size of the LHD’s flight deck.