A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[SASWanabe]

i still think best bet is HMS QE or PoW as carrier, ex USN F/A 18 c/d or e/f (as the usn will have some spare once they start getting F-35C), buy the 2 incomplete (90% done) Henry J Kaisers build another 1 or 2 AWD to fill the gap between the AWD contract and ANZAC replacements and buy another 1 or 2 ANZAC II.

all this could probably be done if we raise defence spending to the level the brits were at (2.5%GDP, we're at 1.9)

all this is from memory and my oppinion i welcome any corrections/input

 

[aussienscale]

Comparing the benefits of optimal jp5 load for a light carrier designed in the Lhd size to the nowadays load of jp5 of the Lhd, it is that instead of being able to sustain all the F35b in air for 1 week you do it for 2 weeks (i would say at most). And that is little thing compared to have in the same ship a big sealift ship, and a Lhd with the dock. And still less compared to the fleet oiler.

Apart we don´t know how big is the extra jp5 load in the carrier mode of the Spanish Lhd, extra wrt to the normal 800 t.

The LHD is just not suited as an Aircraft Carrier ! Yes it can operate the Harrier/JSF, but purely in a CAS type role, and still limited at that. I know I have compared the Canberra Class to the Wasp Class in a "piss against the wall comparo" based purely on very loose comparison's (as A vs B) is not in the interest of the site. But they are vastly different in terms of what they can carry and Fuel and Ammo bunkerage. Here is a link to the Wasp class, have a good read and in particular chap II. You will note that the Wasp can carry over 460,000 US Gallons of JP5 alone !!
USS KEARSARGE LHD-3 SHIP'S LOADING CHARACTERISTICS PAMPHLET

Now compare that to what the US Carriers can carry, then look at the QEII, CDG etc and our requirement would be somewhere in the middle of these and the Wasp. As I said before a 3rd LHD would be obtained to have another LHD, not a carrier. And having 3 LHD's with the JSF would not even come close to a properly designed Carrier for our requirements

 

[xhxi558]

i still think best bet is HMS QE or PoW as carrier, ex USN F/A 18 c/d or e/f (as the usn will have some spare once they start getting F-35C), buy the 2 incomplete (90% done) Henry J Kaisers build another 1 or 2 AWD to fill the gap between the AWD contract and ANZAC replacements and buy another 1 or 2 ANZAC II.

all this could probably be done if we raise defence spending to the level the brits were at (2.5%GDP, we're at 1.9)

all this is from memory and my oppinion i welcome any corrections/input

Based upon some costings I found in a 2007 ASPI document on strategic options the cost of running a 3 QE carrier force with 15 escorts and 144 F35Cs would be approx $250b over a 30 year period, On the basis of a staggered entry of 2020, 2026 and 2032 the cost to the budget might be as low as $150b between now and 2040.

Current "notional" funding for Defence in the budget based upon 3% real increases out to 2018 is approx $930b if funding increased to 2.5% of GDP over that 30 year period, total funding would be about 1,520b, which is $590b more. This could accomodate $150b for a 3 carrier force while still funding other higher priority cabability improvements.

The trick is to get the Govt to increase funding and while nice, carriers would be a low priority compared to a number of other capability improvements.

 

[Sea Toby]

At the moment one could argue Australia requires a dedicated amphibious force, at least a full time amphibious battalion, much more than a light carrier... Australia has a number of options to fill this role either full time or part time... Australia may be able to squeeze the budget for one or the other, but I seriously doubt they could do both with normal peace time budgets... There are other demands upon the government's purse...

Therefore, any light carrier would most likely come from the submarine force as more surface escorts and replenishment ships would be needed to support a light carrier, much less manning them... Frankly, I would rather have a submarine force...

I repeat again, Australia has missed the former Sydney more than the Melbourne... Its why Australia is building two ships to replace the Sydney thirty years late and no ships to replace the Melbourne...

The political reality is that after East Timor the government will support more sea lift... LHDs are useful for many missions from amphibious warfare to disaster relief, something much more likely during the next thirty years than a war presently... The government sees more typhoons, earthquakes, and tsunamis at the moment than they see a potential aggressor, and will budget accordingly...

While it is true a cheaper, smaller ship can be purchased to do disaster relief work, its also true such a ship should meet significant military needs as well...

 

[KiwiRob]

I repeat again, Australia has missed the former Sydney more than the Melbourne... Its why Australia is building two ships to replace the Sydney thirty years late and no ships to replace the Melbourne...

Weren't they both Majestic Class light aircraft carriers? Why would one be missed more than the other?

 

[Volkodav]

At the moment one could argue Australia requires a dedicated amphibious force, at least a full time amphibious battalion, much more than a light carrier... Australia has a number of options to fill this role either full time or part time... Australia may be able to squeeze the budget for one or the other, but I seriously doubt they could do both with normal peace time budgets... There are other demands upon the government's purse...

An amphibious battalion?

There is a school of thought that the RAR and infact the whole RAINF should divest themselves of all non core organic capabilities, that can be better handled by other Corps and arms, and concentrate on being the very best light infantry they can possibly be. Forming an amphibious battalion seems to fly in the face of this.

I believe the idea is for the RAR to consist of seven identical interchangeable battalions with the dispute being whether they sould be LI or Medium Mech (Wheeled). The arguement for LI being they can concentrate on their core infantry skills and leave the specific support functions to the experts in RAAC, RAA etc.

Perhaps an amphibious unit could be formed but rather than Infantry it was a speciallist organisation dedicated to deploying the combat Corps where they need to be?

 

[Sea Toby]

Weren't they both Majestic Class light aircraft carriers? Why would one be missed more than the other?

The Melbourne was used mostly as a light carrier, the Sydney was used mostly as a LPH, a troop transport during Vietnam... See link below....

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKVapTPCn0I&feature=related"]YouTube - The Vung Tau Ferry[/nomedia]


Australila could support their operations during Vietnam more than a thousand miles away, but scrambled to support their operations in East Timor not much more than a hundred miles away...

A famous quote: You can tell the difference between a novice general and a veteran general because a novice discusses tactics and a veteran discusses logistics... Napoleon...

 

[SASWanabe]

Weren't they both Majestic Class light aircraft carriers? Why would one be missed more than the other?

Melbourne Was still under construction when we bought her, she was built with an angled deck, hence more able to operate jet aircraft.

Sydney was already built, no angled deck so useless for jet A/C hence she was converted to troop transport

 

[Sea Toby]

Melbourne Was still under construction when we bought her, she was built with an angled deck, hence more able to operate jet aircraft.

Sydney was already built, no angled deck so useless for jet A/C hence she was converted to troop transport

But which ship eventually was more useful for Australia? The Melbourne dropping bombs in a jungle or the Sydney which brought the troops, their equipment, and their supplies, much less bringing it home? Without the troops being in Vietnam, would the Melbourne have been deployed to the South China Sea? How many deployments did the Melbourne to Vietnam have compared to the deployments of the Sydney? What if Australia had doubled their troop deployments, would the Melbourne have been likewise used as a troop transport?

Without a doubt the Sydney was more valuable... Frankly its the same story, the Melbourne never provided much more than a dozen jets at any given time, and a small light carrier wouldn't provide much more today... Keep in mind the RAAF can deploy squadrons of jets to a foreign theater, much more than a dozen or less...

 

[SASWanabe]

i never said she wasnt, my point is, our amphibious capabilitys will be able to rival most countrys once the 2 LHDs are done let alone the sealift ship. HMS Queen Elizabeth will probably be sold cheap if the brits can find a buyer, Why not?
from what i have read there will be a gap between the last AWD and first ANZAC II constructed why not fill it by making another 1,2 Hobarts?

this is hypothetically tho so only time any of this could ever happen is if the Govt increases defence expenditure.

still A 65k ton carrier and a full wing of F/A18 cheap is a hard opportunity to not think about

 

[SASWanabe]

i never said she wasnt, my point is, our amphibious capabilitys will be able to rival most countrys once the 2 LHDs are done let alone the sealift ship. HMS Queen Elizabeth will possibly be sold cheap if the brits can find a buyer, Why not?
from what i have read there will be a gap between the last AWD and first ANZAC II constructed why not fill it by making another 1,2 Hobarts?

this is hypothetically tho so only time any of this could ever happen is if the Govt increases defence expenditure.

still A 65k ton carrier and a full wing of F/A18 cheap is a hard opportunity to not think about

 

[Sea Toby]

i never said she wasnt, my point is, our amphibious capabilitys will be able to rival most countrys once the 2 LHDs are done let alone the sealift ship. HMS Queen Elizabeth will possibly be sold cheap if the brits can find a buyer, Why not?
from what i have read there will be a gap between the last AWD and first ANZAC II constructed why not fill it by making another 1,2 Hobarts?

this is hypothetically tho so only time any of this could ever happen is if the Govt increases defence expenditure.

still A 65k ton carrier and a full wing of F/A18 cheap is a hard opportunity to not think about

A light carrier alone without any aircraft would most likely run nearly $3 billion... I wonder how many more F-35s the RAAF can buy for that amount? Possibly 30 or more? Add another 10 F-35s for the carrier a carrier could possibly run $4 billion... Why not buy the RAAF 40 or more F-35s? Simply put, I would rather have more jet fighters than one light carrier... I believe the Australian government and defence force have the same opinion...

Then there are the arguments the Aussies need CAS, which can be provided by armed helicopters. And as far as long range striking distance, tankers can refuel jets from Australia and/or nearby island bases can be used with a lot more than say less than a dozen jets...

Many may want a light carrier, but Australia does not really NEED a light carrier... Priorities first...

 

[SASWanabe]

A light carrier alone without any aircraft would most likely run nearly $3 billion... I wonder how more F-35s the RAAF can buy for that amount? Possibly 30 or more? Add another 10 F-35s for the carrier a carrier could possibly run $4 billion... Why not buy the RAAF 40 or more F-35s? Simply put, I would rather have more jet fighters than one light carrier... I believe the Australian government and defence force have the same opinion...

as i have said previously the british will probably sell QE cheap, and the USN will start retiring their F/A18s within the next decade for those 30 F-35 u could have QE and an airwing of 30-40 hornets possibly Shornets

 

[Sea Toby]

as i have said previously the british will probably sell QE cheap, and the USN will start retiring their F/A18s within the next decade for those 30 F-35 u could have QE and an airwing of 30-40 hornets possibly Shornets

The British won't give a new carrier away for almost nothing. They will expect at least half their price of building one if not more. Most likely as much as it cost them. That is more than the $4 billion mentioned earlier for a new light carrier and jets, say twice as much... Nor will the Americans give Hornets or Super Hornets away either....

I like a good deal as much as anyone, but if i can't afford a new Rolls I don't buy one even if the price is half off...

The only people who advocate a carrier are those who want one. As I noted earlier, Australia really doesn't NEED a light carrier... A carrier is a red herring... A false dream...

 

[Todjaeger]

as i have said previously the british will probably sell QE cheap, and the USN will start retiring their F/A18s within the next decade for those 30 F-35 u could have QE and an airwing of 30-40 hornets possibly Shornets

Another point to consider, the ADF would not want any ex-USN/USMC Hornets, the Hornets which are looking to be retired at present are those which have either seen a great deal of hard use, and/or have reached the expected airframe flight hours limit. In short, they are stuffed.

That leaves either new-build SHornets, more F-35s (B or C variant, depending...) or some other naval fighter.

None of which would be keep. In point of fact, the cheapest option would be to transition the RAAF SHornets over to carrier duty, if the appropriate type of carrier was purchased and entered into RAN service. Which is not going to happen short of some major outside event which causes a drastic change in Australian security.

-Cheers

 

[Marc 1]

as i have said previously the british will probably sell QE cheap, and the USN will start retiring their F/A18s within the next decade for those 30 F-35 u could have QE and an airwing of 30-40 hornets possibly Shornets

The other point that hasn't been mentioned is that one carrier is effectively no carrier. Whenever it is in refit/maintenance, there is no carrier. When would an enemy chose to attack? When our one and only carrier is drydocked.

Additionally, the other point quite apart from the obvious upfront cost (ship and air wing - and nobody has mentioned integral AWACS - more cost - PLUS the need for additional AWD to defend the new asset) - is the 'running' expenses. The cost of running a carrier would likely consume the same dollars as both fat ships, or all of the ANZAC's combined. For one exclusive advantage - that would not be available only 60% of the time anyway and on one coast at a time.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The only people who advocate a carrier are those who want one. As I noted earlier, Australia really doesn't NEED a light carrier... A carrier is a red herring... A false dream...

I wouldn’t agree with that. There are good reasons for the Navy to have a carrier capability but like the Army and Air Force they all miss out on weapon systems they need because we don’t spend enough on defence and internal politics issues associated with dividing up the limited kitty. In terms of need the carrier provides air defence in depth which is of significant importance against capable threats. The carrier also provides maritime interdiction, strike and close air support capabilities. Finally the carrier is also a great way to get considerable ASW capability into action. It provides a quality of capability in these areas which is far more cost effective than alternative means.

As to a single carrier only being available 60% of the time it can always be brought rapidly out of refit and into service. HMS Hermes was under refit when the Argentines invaded the Falklands and it didn’t sit out the conflict despite being a 30 year old ship. There are ways to manage such maintenance black holes as will have to be done with the two LHDs with the Amphibious Ready Group requiring two LHDs to deploy (so what if one is in refit).

That the RAN didn’t replace HMAS Melbourne and its air wing in the 1970s and 80s and instead brought two additional Oberon submarines, a cargo ship, a fuel tanker and a fleet of highly expensive ASW helicopters is an indication of a major failing in force structure planning. Our Navy would be much better of and able to do a lot more if all of this had been sacrificed for a Sea Control Ship and an air wing of Sea Harriers.

 

[Sea Toby]

Sorry Abraham, but I agree with Marc 1. If you are going to bother to afford and operate a carrier and its air arm, eventually you come to the conclusion one isn't enough for independent major engagements... Even the US Navy prefers to operate their super carriers in pairs for major engagements... They link up very quickly and before major land operations are underway...

When the Australians operated destroyers and frigates without ASW helicopters, a light carrier was needed for ASW operations. However, once the FFGs and Seahawks entered the fleet shortly after the Melbourne was struck, the ASW light carrier was no longer needed... And as far as the Trackers are concerned, their short range is easily replaced by more longer range Orions operating from foreign airfields if necessary.... One can say the same for the Skyhawks as well...

I repeat I would rather add more fighter jets to the RAAF than waste considerable funds operating a more expensive naval air arm and carriers.... Carriers are for large nations with the funds, Australia isn't that large... Australia barely has the escorts and replenishment ships for one carrier, if that, much less two...

 

[Jaimito]

Now compare that to what the US Carriers can carry, then look at the QEII, CDG etc and our requirement would be somewhere in the middle of these and the Wasp. As I said before a 3rd LHD would be obtained to have another LHD, not a carrier. And having 3 LHD's with the JSF would not even come close to a properly designed Carrier for our requirements

Ok, i look at the Nimitz carrier and 3 Canberras:
-100000 t. displ. for Nmitz, 24000 per Canberra in carrier mode so 3 Lhds 72000 t., still it is a bit "unfair", better would be 4 Lhd´s with 96000 t. for comparing, but the issue is 3.
-90 airwing in jets and helos, normally 40-50 jets but some more still so like +60 jets, in Nimitz, in 3 Lhds at least 20 (probably) F35bs in hangar with still room in flight deck for like 10 more jet parking places (2 spots in terms of parking places plus back parking places next to the Sea Ram), so also +60 F35b´s. Result: similar capabilities for carriying jets.
-Nimitz: 3 catapults (as the 4th coincides a lot with the landing run), 3 Lhd: 3 runways (of 160+ mts long). Result: similar capabilities for launching.
-Nimitz: 1 landing runway with 3 arrestors, 3 Lhd: 12 med. helo size spots for vertical landing. Result: 3 Lhd win to land many more jets in the same time employed.
-Nimitz: 4 aircraft lifts, 3 Lhd: 6 aircraft lifts. Result: 3 Lhd win to move all the jets to the flight deck.
-Nimitz: 2 weapons lift, 3 Lhd: 3 weapons lift. Result: 3 Lhd win to rearm jets.
-Nimitz: 1 Sea Ram and 3 20mm Ciws (any more?), 3 Lhd: 6 Sea Ram and 9 (12?) 20 mm Ciws. Result: obvious at this data.
-Nimitz: 1 location, 3 Lhd: 3 different locations for whatever. Result: strategically better 3 locations.
-NImitz: 8000 t. of Jp5, 3 Lhd: 2400 t. (+some extra on carrier mode) of Jp5. Result: use the 25000t. of difference wrt Nimitz of the 3 Lhd to ad in comparison a fleet oiler.
-Apart other comparisons in total radar coverage and other equipments.., manning people etc.. sealift caps, dock´s.
-Refuelling stations, at least 6 in 3 Lhd´s son probably 3 Lhd refuel faster than 1 Nimitz.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Sorry Abraham, but I agree with Marc 1. If you are going to bother to afford and operate a carrier and its air arm, eventually you come to the conclusion one isn't enough for independent major engagements... Even the US Navy prefers to operate their super carriers in pairs for major engagements... They link up very quickly and before major land operations are underway...

Not so. The USN operates carriers in pairs because CTOL carriers require cyclic operations and can only man the flight deck for 12 hours at a time. So for a 24-7 capability you need two, preferably three, carriers. However some smaller carriers and in V/STOL carriers are very different. They can operate 24 hours a day because they don’t have the manning demands of respoting the flight deck every hour and operating arrestor wires and catapults. The RN, Spanish Armada and Italian National Marine have extensively proven that a single V/STOL carrier can provide an effective at sea force. So to did the RAN with the Melbourne…

When the Australians operated destroyers and frigates without ASW helicopters, a light carrier was needed for ASW operations. However, once the FFGs and Seahaowks entered the fleet shortly after the Melbourne was struck, the ASW light carrier was no longer needed... And as far as the Trackers are concerned, their short range is easily replaced by more longer range Orions operating from foreign airfields if necessary.... One can say the same for the Skyhawks as well...

“Shortly after”… you mean nine years… The Seahawks were only acquired in place of a replacement for Melbourne not as a cause of the later event. And shore based MPA and fighters can never replace the same effect as at sea based equivalents. It’s a simple matter of physics: distance diminishes effect at an N squared ratio…

When I repeat I would rather add more fighter jets to the RAAF than waste considerable funds operating a more expensive naval air arm and carriers.... Carriers are for large nations with the funds, Australia isn't that large... Australia barely has the escorts and replenishment ships for one carrier, if that, much less two...

Sure and that is a less capable force. There are many small navies successfully operating small carriers. Spain is a good example. Their fleet is far more powerful than ours and doesn’t require some huge outlay in fleet train and escorts.