A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[Sea Toby]

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.

When the RAN strike the two LPAs and their 240 crew, a total of 480, pretty much the crew for the Ark Royal, I don't believe operating her is going to be much more... I would think burning fuel for one ship is not going to run as much as burning fuel with two ships...

The British have used the Invincible class carriers as LPHs in the past. Surely the RAN can do so as well... Up to the time the two Canberra class LHDs are commissioned.... And if necessary, recruiting a few snipes from the RN could help ease the burden of operating her gas turbines...

Only a government bureaucrat and a non sailor would rename a ship christened by the Queen Mom... And there have been previous renamings and times when the names weren't changed. Recall HMS and HMAS Shropshire? Which British cruiser and Australian cruiser during WWII went through the war unscathed? Luck is something that should not be tossed away so easily...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Only a government bureaucrat and a non sailor would rename a ship christened by the Queen Mom... And there have been previous renamings and a situation where the name wasn't changed. Recall HMS and HMAS Shropshire? Which British cruiser and Australian cruiser during WWII went through the war unscathed? Luck is something that should not be tossed away so easily...

Well the Queen Mum has done a lot more for the UK than ever for Australia so please excuse us for having less of an emotional attachment. As to HMA Ships Qs, Ns, Shropshire, Vengeance and Duchess each ship retained her RN name because they remained the property of the RN and were only commissioned in the RAN on a temporary basis to provide ships for crews who lacked one. If the RN was willing to loan Ark Royal to the RAN without cost and have it back after a four year stint in the RAN then of course it would retain her name even in a HMA commission.

However just like HM Ships/Nuships/RFAs Amphion, Apollo, Phaeton, Terrible, Majestic, Invincible (almost) and Appleleaf if going to a permanent home in the RAN it would be renamed to something more suitable. Ark Royal is the ship name embodiment of the RN (literally) and would not be well suited to a ship owned by Australia. There is even a RAN ship naming policy that talks about the importance of ship names being distinctively Australian.

 

[t68]

Well if Ark Royal did become part of the landscape for 4 years, she should be called HMAS Wombat (eats roots and leaves) because that’s what she will do to the defence budget and the RAN.

Eat up resources that the RAN can use elsewhere
Roots the defence budget especially the RAN trying to run her.
Leaves at the end of her 4 years in Australia

 

[icelord]

Well if Ark Royal did become part of the landscape for 4 years, she should be called HMAS Wombat (eats roots and leaves) because that’s what she will do to the defence budget and the RAN.

Eat up resources that the RAN can use elsewhere
Roots the defence budget especially the RAN trying to run her.
Leaves at the end of her 4 years in Australia

Agree
Id rather wait the 18months for the bay to become available, at least we could guarantee less hassle, early life wear and tear, and a platform for the future as part of JP2048 requirements.
Whats the point in jumping the gun for a ship that has as good a chance of getting through Sydney heads as Kanimbla has of getting out...

 

[Sea Toby]

Its not like the RAN's amphibious ships are in fine working order today. As I recall the first amphibious ship that was to be struck was the Tobruk, but at the moment she is the ship still running, the other two have clapped out... At least the Ark Royal is still in good running order...

Simply put, the Tobruk wasn't enough sea lift for East Timor. The amphibious forces of the RAN at the moment is in very poor shape... On a scale of 10 I would rate the RAN's sealift at 1....

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Id rather wait the 18months for the bay to become available, at least we could guarantee less hassle, early life wear and tear, and a platform for the future as part of JP2048 requirements.

So what happens if we have a crisis in the next 18 months? These ships exist to do jobs that don’t usually come with a connivent forward warning. If the Navy can’t sustain an amphibious capability then what’s the point of having it.

Whats the point in jumping the gun for a ship that has as good a chance of getting through Sydney heads as Kanimbla has of getting out...

In that case there is no real need for the Bay class either. But my risk tolerance is a bit lower than trusting the spin that the LPA can be used if need be. Use creates wear and tear and if they are this thumped after peace time routine how are they going to last in a crisis? Ark Royal on the other hand is in much better condition only three years out from a two year (major) refit. As an LPH she would not be required to operate at the higher average speeds and ship systems intensity as a carrier and could reasonably be expected to last four years without need for refit.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well if Ark Royal did become part of the landscape for 4 years, she should be called HMAS Wombat (eats roots and leaves) because that’s what she will do to the defence budget and the RAN.

Eat up resources that the RAN can use elsewhere
Roots the defence budget especially the RAN trying to run her.
Leaves at the end of her 4 years in Australia

Wombats don’t just sit around growing fat on “roots and leaves”. They build tunnel networks, fight off predators while raising and training a new generation of wombats. So this is quite an apt name. Your logical deduction behind it – if I can call it that – is of course highly flawed and certainly no wombat would say something so stupid.

I suggested a few years ago in some article that the two LHDs should be called HMA Ships Kangaroo and Wombat because that is inescapably Australian (Adelaide isn’t exactly a high profile city), full of character and descriptive of their role (pouches). But to paraphrase a certain US Admiral: marsupials don’t vote…

 

[icelord]

So what happens if we have a crisis in the next 18 months? These ships exist to do jobs that don’t usually come with a connivent forward warning. If the Navy can’t sustain an amphibious capability then what’s the point of having it.

The story from the stokers onboard is, they can sail, they can last a few months out, there will be minor engine troubles, there will be standard 'no fun 51' issues. While the 50 or so problems found while RAN investigation went through sounded new, to those onboard its kinda hard to identify a problem that was first identified up 5 years ago. Many of what was found is nothing new to anyone, its been band aid after band aid to fix it. In all honesty, if that same team went down FBE to all the ships alongside now, im sure they could find 20 issues off the first walk through. The difference is the age of the boat and how much they are willing to spend to fix it.
For so long, ADF requirment overuled the ships need for repair, docking, upgrade...any formal repairs to the ship. This time last year Kanimbla was meant to be alongside for 3 months for Ships Maintance Period, 4 days after berthing back in sydney from a 2 month excercise, she sailed for PNG for 3months. i lost drinking buddys for that time:cheers
If either ship had a full docking previously, then they may be in a better state. Manoora had one end of last year and thats all thats kept her from running into Nth Head also.
I am a massive critic of the LPAs, i will not deny it. Having mates onboard who cannot wait to flee the dramas it brings, i can go down and look at the issues both have without thankfully being needed to repair them, my ships got its only repairs to conduct.
If during this 6mths they put Kanimbla in dry dock, then she may get a little more life out of it. Manoora can hold out that little bit more. Tobruk will fall apart soon enough from taking up the slack of the LPAs, and from what i heard when she got back today, they may want to make room in the dock for her as well.
Our Amphib fleet is falling apart, so why add another relic to it. Dads Navy for ships...

In that case there is no real need for the Bay class either. But my risk tolerance is a bit lower than trusting the spin that the LPA can be used if need be. Use creates wear and tear and if they are this thumped after peace time routine how are they going to last in a crisis? Ark Royal on the other hand is in much better condition only three years out from a two year (major) refit. As an LPH she would not be required to operate at the higher average speeds and ship systems intensity as a carrier and could reasonably be expected to last four years without need for refit.

Well JP2048C does mention something bout a heavy lift ship, and the requirement for one. Getting a Bay class now saves a long and drawn out process to identify a ship we could have been using already. If they skip this chance, then we go into a tender process, followed by selection then have to build it or getting it built overseas and fitted out here. The RN may say, 'o yes she is in splendid shape to use for a few years...' but, hey didnt bomber beazely get told that same story from the USN back in 1990s?
Why buy a vessel that has been deemed to expensive to operate and only fit for immediate decommissioning. Does that not say something in itself. At least the bay is fairly new and comes as a shock to remove it from the fleet, Ark Royal had the boot up the rear years ago.

 

[swerve]

Ark Royal isn't deemed only fit for immediate decommissioning, or too expensive to operate. She's being decommissioned because the budget to operate anything is being cut. She's supposedly in pretty good nick: she had a two year refit ending 2 1/2 years ago, which included modifications to make her more useful as an LPH, & she's newer than Illustrious.

The only reason to keep Illustrious rather than the Ark is that Lusty is currently in refit, & will be that bit 'newer' when she emerges. Ocean is the cheapest of the lot to run, & the most recently refitted.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Wombats don’t just sit around growing fat on “roots and leaves”. They build tunnel networks, fight off predators while raising and training a new generation of wombats. So this is quite an apt name. Your logical deduction behind it – if I can call it that – is of course highly flawed and certainly no wombat would say something so stupid.

I suggested a few years ago in some article that the two LHDs should be called HMA Ships Kangaroo and Wombat because that is inescapably Australian (Adelaide isn’t exactly a high profile city), full of character and descriptive of their role (pouches). But to paraphrase a certain US Admiral: marsupials don’t vote…

We lost the wombat gun a few years back too, so the name is definitely available in military parlance. Official or otherwise...

 

[Raven22]

We lost the wombat gun a few years back too, so the name is definitely available in military parlance. Official or otherwise...

The wombat gun is still in service. Still being used with pride in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[t68]

Wombats don’t just sit around growing fat on “roots and leaves”. They build tunnel networks, fight off predators while raising and training a new generation of wombats. So this is quite an apt name. Your logical deduction behind it – if I can call it that – is of course highly flawed and certainly no wombat would say something so stupid.

…

If you would like to call that stupid thinking then that’s up to you,

I think you idea has some merits if it were a long term purchase and was cheap enough to modify to a (cheaper than building new) acceptable standard and use for the long term, once the LHD come on line in the future. You only have to look at the expense of converting the LPA’s after we got them.

But to get her at the expense of getting a ship that in the longer term will have more benefits to the RAN, no modifications necessary other than what you have suggested with the Ark Royal. IMO is a complete waste of resource that can be better utilized within a small and decreasing budget for defence.

Question for you
What would be the cost of running HMS Ark Royal for 4 years compared to putting that money towards getting a Bay class on the cheap from the RN, remembering as Icelord has said we have a requirement for such a ship under JP2048C and will have the budget run her for the long term?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Question for you
What would be the cost of running HMS Ark Royal for 4 years compared to putting that money towards getting a Bay class on the cheap from the RN, remembering as Icelord has said we have a requirement for such a ship under JP2048C and will have the budget run her for the long term?

Clearly you’ve missed the whole point of this suggestion. Your question is in direct opposition to this point. Since it has been at the centre of each post I’ve made its clear you haven’t read them. I won’t bother repeating this point. If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion go back and read the posts and understand the issue.

 

[spoz]

As to HMA Ships Qs, Ns, Shropshire, Vengeance and Duchess each ship retained her RN name because they remained the property of the RN and were only commissioned in the RAN on a temporary basis to provide ships for crews who lacked one.

Well, not quite - the Qs became the property of Australia in 1946 by gift to replace war losses and Ducky in about 1970 when we bought her for what seemed even then to be a small sum. And, of course, we didn't change the names of the S and V&W class destroyers acquired after WWI which were also our property. But the point is generally valid - we should name ships with Australian names. And to expand on the point, Manoora and Kanimbla were Saginaw and Whats-er-name County - we changed those quick enough.

As for the suggestion a few posts on that Adelaide is a city of no account, as a resident of that fair place I'll have you know.............

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well, not quite - the Qs became the property of Australia in 1946 by gift to replace war losses and Ducky in about 1970 when we bought her for what seemed even then to be a small sum.

Well that has no bearing on the issue. When they were commissioned into the RAN the ships were loans. If several years later they were gifted or sold that has no effect on the retention of the original name for the initial commission due to the linear nature of time. While it is acceptable to rename a ship when it enters service with another navy (assuming they have the right to rename it) it is not so acceptable to rename it while in service. And the Qs were gifted as in part compensation for the far higher value of goods gifted during the war to the UK than the UK ever gifted to Australia.

And, of course, we didn't change the names of the S and V&W class destroyers acquired after WWI which were also our property.

These transfers predate the statue of Westminister so technically Australia wasn’t an independent state. But of course there was an indeterminate line that was crossed somewhere in the 1920s/30s when the UK stopped naming ships after Australian entities (HMS Tasmania, later HMAS Tasmania…) and the RAN started renaming new acquisitions.

As for the suggestion a few posts on that Adelaide is a city of no account, as a resident of that fair place I'll have you know.............

I said no such thing. Rather that Adelaide does not have a high profile as an Australian city. If presented with the name most people would think of the eponymous British Queen, or Beethoven or the very popular diminutive form of the name: Heidi.

It struck me at the time and still does that naming an LHD being built in Spain and Victoria after Adelaide at the same time as an entire class of DDGs was being built in Adelaide as particularly inappropriate. The AWDs should be the “Adelaide class” and the second fatship could be named for some other city.

 

[t68]

Clearly you’ve missed the whole point of this suggestion. Your question is in direct opposition to this point. Since it has been at the centre of each post I’ve made its clear you haven’t read them. I won’t bother repeating this point. If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion go back and read the posts and understand the issue.

No i have not missed the point,

Your point is the HMS Ark Royal can replace HMAS Manoora/Kanimbla now in the short term instead of spending money on bring them back up to standard, and can do the job of both LPA’S till the LHD come on line around 2014/15,which has some merit in doing this.

My point is the money spent bringing Ark Royal up to operating standards to the RAN will be the same as it will be for a Bay class, plus running cost might be cheaper for the Bay class. RAN Personnel would only have get up to speed once on the Bay not twice learning the complexities of Ark Royal and the replacement sea lift ship as part of JP2084C.

Bay class is a direct replacement of the Round Table class ships in RN inventory, which is as you know HMAS Tobruk is of this class by all accounts from what Icelord is saying she not in much better shape. Money IMO should be used on long term efficiency in the fleet not short gap compromises.



My quote from post 372,
But to get her at the expense of getting a ship that in the longer term will have more benefits to the RAN, no modifications necessary other than what you have suggested with the Ark Royal. IMO is a complete waste of resource that can be better utilized within a small and decreasing budget for defence.

 

[spoz]

I said no such thing. Rather that Adelaide does not have a high profile as an Australian city. If presented with the name most people would think of the eponymous British Queen, or Beethoven or the very popular diminutive form of the name: Heidi.

It struck me at the time and still does that naming an LHD being built in Spain and Victoria after Adelaide at the same time as an entire class of DDGs was being built in Adelaide as particularly inappropriate. The AWDs should be the “Adelaide class” and the second fatship could be named for some other city.

I think the V&W transfer (about 1935) was after the Statute of Westminster (1931?) but from a psychological perspective you're undoubtedly correct. Of course the earlier generation also gave us Success and Stalwart as well as Tattoo -where would we be without them? And why have we never repeated Tasmania?

I rather agree about the AWDs (or DDGs, the denomination by which they should now be becoming known) but the FFGs were of course the "Adelaide Class" in the RAN and there seems to be a reluctance to reuse the name of a class whereas there is no reluctance to reuse some ship names, particularly those realted to state capitals and other towns. Although why we haven't repeated at least VD and Vamps is beyond me; I suppose Voyager might be a step too far for a few more years. I always thought that a couple of the ANZACs should carry those rather than the names of provincial towns, one of which just happened to be the home town of the CN of the day.

 

[Sea Toby]

I see a trend that different state capitols are being given the first ships of a class of ships. Australia for the battle cruiser, Melbourne class cruisers, Australia class heavy cruisers, Sydney class light cruisers, Perth class destroyers, Adelaide class frigates, Hobart class destroyers, and Canberra class LHDs.. I would think the next class will be the Brisbane class... While many of the cities names have been reused, its a different city for each new class of ships...

 

[aussienscale]

As has been pointed out the real issue here is the capability gap ! Have we learned nothing from ET ? These things don't come with pre announcements, they just happen. It gives another great op for anyone to now exploit our lack of ability, not just ET but Fiji, Bouganville etc.

I don't buy into the argument that we can't afford this ? We have 2 fully manned LPA's sitting alongside with the crew watching the paint peel, Ark Royal has basically just come out of an extended re-fit and would suit our purposes well, and I am betting we could get it for a song.
We have more than enough crew to man her and if operating it from and engineering point of view is an issue I'm sure with everything happening with the RN that experienced Engineers and Senior Sailor's would not be that hard to attract to the land of OZ for a Sea Change ? And spares would not be an issue either

The future sealift ship would not be put at risk as we need the capability long term, saying that I don't believe a Bay would be in our long term interest, but rather a new vessel, as Abraham said swapping over gear from the LPA's is not a huge issue, and I am sure we would get good service from the AR. On the flip side we would not have too many troubles finding a buyer for her down the track or possibly (if the budget does by some miracle improve :rotfl) keep her for a longer period of time ?

There are many possibilities, but the gap needs to be filled and pretty quickly too, but the political willingness and foresight to do so it another thing all together

 

[Abraham Gubler]

No i have not missed the point,

Yes you have. See below for a final explanation of your epic fail.

Your point is the HMS Ark Royal can replace HMAS Manoora/Kanimbla now in the short term instead of spending money on bring them back up to standard, and can do the job of both LPA’S till the LHD come on line around 2014/15,which has some merit in doing this.

My point is the money spent bringing Ark Royal up to operating standards to the RAN will be the same as it will be for a Bay class, plus running cost might be cheaper for the Bay class. RAN Personnel would only have get up to speed once on the Bay not twice learning the complexities of Ark Royal and the replacement sea lift ship as part of JP2084C.

Well ‘your’ point is just a co-option of those made by others well before you piped up. But the fundamental issue you have missed is time. Ark Royal is available now, Bay class in 14 months. The LPAs can be fixed by the time the Bay class is available and the objective is not filling the sealift requirement 10 years early. Its providing a basic amphibious capability now and up until the LHDs are ready.