A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[t68]

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



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.

Well it’s nice to know that you have ESP to know what i am thinking, and cannot possible have my own thoughts on the matter without other people clouding my mind.

If you care to look back at post 351/352 you will note i have not been in favour of acquiring HMS Ark Royal as short term fix, you will note that i have actually stated it may be feasible in the unlikely possibility of,
A, LHD were to be delayed for some unknown reason and might be useful as a training platform.

B, as a stop gap filler as you suggested if she need minimal work but keep her long term as a fixed wing CAS/limited fleet support asset. Also how much reengineering would it take to bring her machinery space to the same spec as a Canberra Class, also would it justify the money spent in doing this?

If that’s your idea of co-option.

Well frankly i am not here to change your view, also i stand by my position regarding to choose between Ark Royal/Bay class. We managed to scrap through ET (not ideal) with 5 Balikpapan class landing ships and HMAS Tobruk. By the time they cut through the red tape we could have a Bay class not much longer than after Ark Royal and a bay will still be in RAN colours out to 2035 time frame.

But what it comes down to is that anyone who does not go along with your views, you go on the attack, you play the man not the ball, just because someone does not agree with you.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well it’s nice to know that you have ESP to know what i am thinking, and cannot possible have my own thoughts on the matter without other people clouding my mind.

If you care to look back at post 351/352 you will note i have not been in favour of acquiring HMS Ark Royal as short term fix, you will note that i have actually stated it may be feasible in the unlikely possibility of,

You are judged on what you say in your posts. Yes I don’t have ESP so if you don’t write something in a post and later relay upon that unwritten idea as a defence against a reasonable interpretation of what you have written then clearly there is something wrong. And it is not me calling you out for what you have written.

In post 351 you made no mention of the LPA issue just rambled on about delays in the LHD and converting the engine room of the Ark Royal to Canberra standard (technically you just said convert an engine room to Canberra standard didn’t specify which one) and some stuff about carriers and USS America. None of it made much sense or was relevant so was best ignored. Post 352 was more on this topic (re-engineering and operating as a carrier) though somehow in reference to the LPA replacement. Which I struggle now after a second and third reading to find the connection to what the rest of us were discussing.

At no stage in any of these and other posts to now have you addressed why you don’t like the Ark Royal as an immediate LPA replacement which was what the rest of us were discussing. You’ve just rambled on about long term acquisitions, converting engine rooms to Canberra standard (impossible) and operating STOVL carriers and the long term benefits of the Bay class.

But what it comes down to is that anyone who does not go along with your views, you go on the attack, you play the man not the ball, just because someone does not agree with you.

LOL. I have not attacked you personally just repeatedly pointed out how you have missed the point the rest of us are discussing. If you think that is a personal attack then I envy your sheltered life to date.

Only in this last post have you offered up something like an argument against a LPA gap fill capability. Which is that we got by in East Timor without any LPAs so we should be fine without them now… the less said about this point of view the best. I’ll file it alongside your idea to refit the Ark Royal with a Canberra class propulsion system.

 

[StoresBasher]

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

I can assure you that niether crews of the LPA's are sitting around watching the paint peel.
Crews of both ships are extremely busy trying to get the ships ready for sea again.
Both ships are at short notice for sea, in case of an operational emergency.

Even if we got Ark Royal today, I reckon it would be 12-18 months before she could be fully operational, and fully manned with RAN people trained up on the vessel.

 

[recce.k1]

Even if we got Ark Royal today, I reckon it would be 12-18 months before she could be fully operational, and fully manned with RAN people trained up on the vessel.

And that, finally, must be the crux of the issue, whether one supports an immediate Ark Royal purchase or not. As well as political will etc.

In the current state you have LPA's & Tobruk, whilst not in the best shape, could (politicians = would) deploy in an emergency. Although there must be some inherent risks (break downs). But also think ANZAC too nowadays, HMNZS Canterbury is operational (with some limitations to be resolved). So that's 4 ships which is is still better than in ET times (Tobruk only).

Perhaps not a perfect situation, hence I can see the rationale in the Ark Royal advocates, although what is the chances that the Oz Govt will see it that way (or much better still, see the worth of an Ark Royal purchase to complement the LHD's and the rest of the fleet*)?

As GF has been saying (and reminding), the money is no longer there (and won't be for many years) plus the latter option of an aircraft carrier is not on the planning board for the foreseeable future*. For the pollies, 4 somewhat perhaps imperfect vessels gives them their justification to not make a rush purchase of HMS Ark Royal to fill a short term LPA/LHD capability gap ....

* I had been accepting of the fact that Oz doesn't "want" or "need" an aircraft carrier (as in for fast jets and maritime choppers & survellience), but I could be persuaded otherwise now, as pointed out, if Australia had one, think of the show of force that it would provide to the likes of the Fijian military regime in 1987, 2000 and 2006 etc. Perhaps NZ should contribute 20% to the cost of one (including operational and manning) for South Pacific/SE Asia "peace-keeping" and "humanitarian" functions, of course

 

[t68]

You are judged on what you say in your posts. Yes I don’t have ESP so if you don’t write something in a post and later relay upon that unwritten idea as a defence against a reasonable interpretation of what you have written then clearly there is something wrong. And it is not me calling you out for what you have written.

In post 351 you made no mention of the LPA issue just rambled on about delays in the LHD and converting the engine room of the Ark Royal to Canberra standard (technically you just said convert an engine room to Canberra standard didn’t specify which one) and some stuff about carriers and USS America. None of it made much sense or was relevant so was best ignored. Post 352 was more on this topic (re-engineering and operating as a carrier) though somehow in reference to the LPA replacement. Which I struggle now after a second and third reading to find the connection to what the rest of us were discussing.

.
.

I believe you are a smart man AB, but where in post 351 have i stated convert into the engine room to Canberra standard(which one), post 352 however mentions if it is possible to re-engineer to same spec or similar to a Canberra Class. Thanks for finally answering the question.

Also post 351 mentions if there were a delay Ark Royal it might feasible to loan as a training vessel till the LHD came along also mentioning that machinery spaces where obsolete and labour intensive and would have no training value to the RAN gearing up to a Canberra class. I also don’t think a man of with your knowledge on defence would not be able to come up with the conclusion, I was referring to the leap from when Ark Royal was no longer needed in the LPH role she could move back to her traditional role as a light carrier for CAS/limited fleet defence, would the expense be justifiable?

You gave some advice in post 373 maybe you should take it on board as well.

 

[aussienscale]

I can assure you that niether crews of the LPA's are sitting around watching the paint peel.
Crews of both ships are extremely busy trying to get the ships ready for sea again.
Both ships are at short notice for sea, in case of an operational emergency.

Even if we got Ark Royal today, I reckon it would be 12-18 months before she could be fully operational, and fully manned with RAN people trained up on the vessel.

I know exactly what the crew are doing (been there done that) was just a figure of speech.
What would be your solution out of curiosity ? I doubt it would take 12-18 months to get the AR operational, If we go the way of the Bay Class, well that is then even longer, can we really rely on the LPA's and Tobruk ? After the negative publicity surrounding the LPA's it would be a self destructive polly to put them to sea and risk the consequences.

From a financial point of view pouring more into them is a waste of time and money for an assett we should never have got in the first place, Just to try and make them operational for what period of time ?

 

[ThePuss]

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

I think you are confusing WOMBAT (Weapon of Magnesium Battalion Anti Tank) a 120mm Recoilless Rifle which was mounted on a two wheel trolley, with the M2 Carl Gustav, a 84mm Recoilless Rifle which is shoulder fired.

Yes the "Charlie G" is still serving with pride 70 odd years after the basic design came out and is fact still being developed (an ultra light weight model is currently in the works). But it's not the Wombat nor it that one of it's nick names.

Nuff said about dirty Army stuff, Time to get back to all things nautical

 

[gf0012-aust]

Reminder -> Play Nice.

 

[Raven22]

I think you are confusing WOMBAT (Weapon of Magnesium Battalion Anti Tank) a 120mm Recoilless Rifle which was mounted on a two wheel trolley, with the M2 Carl Gustav, a 84mm Recoilless Rifle which is shoulder fired.

Yes the "Charlie G" is still serving with pride 70 odd years after the basic design came out and is fact still being developed (an ultra light weight model is currently in the works). But it's not the Wombat nor it that one of it's nick names.

Nuff said about dirty Army stuff, Time to get back to all thinks nautical

Ah, the day I get lectured by a Pusser on Army matters (AKA warfare for men) is the day I hand in my spurs for one of those Navy tambourine hats.

The wombat gun was the nickname of the evergreen M-79, the precurser to the M-203 that generations of infantrymen got whacked in the head by every time they took up a fire position. Despite the introduction of the GLA it is still being used in all theatres of war that Australia operates in.

 

[ThePuss]

Ah, the day I get lectured by a Pusser on Army matters (AKA warfare for men) is the day I hand in my spurs for one of those Navy tambourine hats.

The wombat gun was the nickname of the evergreen M-79, the precurser to the M-203 that generations of infantrymen got whacked in the head by every time they took up a fire position. Despite the introduction of the GLA it is still being used in all theatres of war that Australia operates in.

Roger, consider me suitable chastised :dunce

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Roger, consider me suitable chastised :dunce

So named because it was the only weapon able to take out a wombat... Tough critters, big gun.

 

[Marc 1]

Ah, the day I get lectured by a Pusser on Army matters (AKA warfare for men) is the day I hand in my spurs for one of those Navy tambourine hats.

The wombat gun was the nickname of the evergreen M-79, the precurser to the M-203 that generations of infantrymen got whacked in the head by every time they took up a fire position. Despite the introduction of the GLA it is still being used in all theatres of war that Australia operates in.

LOL - very LOL! Two brilliant posts - this one and the HMAS Wombat comment - classic!

 

[Volkodav]

Ah, the day I get lectured by a Pusser on Army matters (AKA warfare for men) is the day I hand in my spurs for one of those Navy tambourine hats.

The wombat gun was the nickname of the evergreen M-79, the precurser to the M-203 that generations of infantrymen got whacked in the head by every time they took up a fire position. Despite the introduction of the GLA it is still being used in all theatres of war that Australia operates in.

Used to love live fires with them, watching the grenade sail through the air and through the doorway of the target building before ducking down to make the range officer happy. Always thought it was called the Wombat gun because if you use a shotgun on rabbits something this big must be for wombats, will stand corrected though.

Loved the F-1 too, not as effective as an F-88C but fun to fire and I don't know if it was just me but more accurate in QCB and sneaker range shoots than I ever managed with the Steyr.

Anyway I'm way off topic so had better go away and think of something carrier related to contribute.

 

[Volkodav]

I do like the the idea of acquiring Ark as an interim option and do not believe getting the crew upto speed will be much of an issue, infact having them learn the systems onboard Ark would likely help them get ready for the LHDs. They will learn to drive and maintain GTs, modern radars, a through deck with a skijump (air flow issues).....lots of plusses on the training side.

I am currious, would we keep the Goalkeepers, switch to Phalanx or retro fit a couple of Typhoons?

 

[StoresBasher]

I know exactly what the crew are doing (been there done that) was just a figure of speech.
What would be your solution out of curiosity ? I doubt it would take 12-18 months to get the AR operational, If we go the way of the Bay Class, well that is then even longer, can we really rely on the LPA's and Tobruk ? After the negative publicity surrounding the LPA's it would be a self destructive polly to put them to sea and risk the consequences.

From a financial point of view pouring more into them is a waste of time and money for an assett we should never have got in the first place, Just to try and make them operational for what period of time ?

There is absolutely no talk of AR or anything else onboard the LPA I am currently serving on.
Without breaking Op Security, we have been told that we'll be sea again sooner than later.
The ships are old, but they do work very well when they are healthy, they won't be put back to sea if they are not 100% safe.

My solution, fix the LPA's put them back to sea, wait for the LHD to come online and play the LPA's off.

 

[icelord]

I can assure you that niether crews of the LPA's are sitting around watching the paint peel.
Crews of both ships are extremely busy trying to get the ships ready for sea again.
Both ships are at short notice for sea, in case of an operational emergency.

Even if we got Ark Royal today, I reckon it would be 12-18 months before she could be fully operational, and fully manned with RAN people trained up on the vessel.

Having stopped by the LPAs today to see their progress, manooras crew is more then confident she is ready to sail again. Their argument is they were already at sea and called back, its Kanimbla thats the issue...

As for watching paint peel, you dont have much experience with buffers AS i take it...

 

[aussienscale]

As for watching paint peel, you dont have much experience with buffers AS i take it...

Was that for me ?

Well looks like if they are almost ready they are almost ready, not sure why they got to that stage before rectification though ? But none the less lets hope they stay the distance for a few more yet then

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I do like the the idea of acquiring Ark as an interim option

The only rationale for this idea would be that the LPAs just can’t sail. Obviously most of us are not privy to a detailed knowledge of the LPA’s mechanical standard. Reports to date range from ‘will break in half in a swell’ to ‘just a few pipes need replacing’. The real standard is no doubt somewhere in between and the reports from crew on this thread sway in the direction of four more years of sailing. Otherwise the cost, training demand, etc of a gap fill replacement just isn’t worth it. Training on big flight decks is not such a critical issue it can’t be done as part of the LHD introduction into service. If we were planning on a CTOL carrier instead of an LHD this might be a very different case but of course we aren’t.

I am currious, would we keep the Goalkeepers, switch to Phalanx or retro fit a couple of Typhoons?

Any significant structural, systems change should be avoided in any short term gap fill lease – no matter what the ship is. Sure you need to change radios and the like so you can talk to other people and perhaps deactivate or remove weapon systems you don’t have an ammunition supply for. Anyway when it comes to CIWS this is a moot point. Ark Royal is fitted with Phalanx her Goalkeepers were replaced some time ago. Also if the RN was to sell/lease Ark Royal onto another party it would most likely keep her Phalanx for reuse as they are quite easy (by naval standards) to remove and reinstall on another ship.

 

[Sea Toby]

I agree AG about the Ark Royal, only as a stop gap measure if the LPAs can't last. Snatching one of Bays when available is another story... Helicopter hangars can be added later if necessary...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I agree AG about the Ark Royal, only as a stop gap measure if the LPAs can't last. Snatching one of Bays when available is another story... Helicopter hangars can be added later if necessary...

There is a pretty big 'tent' that the RN adds when helos are embarked. Fills the space between the forward crane and the superstructure. It could hold at least four MRH sized helos, maybe more. But for the RAN as a sealift ship as is seems almost perfect as her role would be to ferry stuff between logsitics port and the LHDs so whe doesn't need to be able to operate helos just land them, carry them and launch them once.