OpinionNoted
Banned Member
no but on a per capita basis easily exceding spains defence expenditure potential...and for that matter britains...inaccurate post your replying to but you get the gist of what it meant.
A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?
- Thread starter t68
- Start date
- Status
I was referring to their surrender in World War 2 and all their restrictions they got now from the Americans.
Yes, I checked my figures, I was way out on that call. I had it in my mind they were 30 million, way off, They have had huge population growth since the 2000's tho, interesting. Still in terms of defence expendure we aren't poles apart and its an achieveable level (im dipping out of the australia running Regans and QE's argument).
GB
I think 3 AWD will limit the fleet, more so as it gets on and we need up upgrade and overhaul. The AOR may be supplied by allies, but if it could get up would again be worthwhile. You can also form a Surface Action Group based around a AWD some of the time when things are good.
I wonder what Natavia F-35B carrier would look like and how much would it cost?
The Cavour ran one and a half billion Euros up front, about twice as much as the Canberra... While the ships are about the same size, the Cavour has more and better radars and weapons systems...
yes, but paying for Cavour was purposely stretched out over 10 years. a good example would be the QE's look at the difference before and after delays.
if we did get Navantia to build a proper STOVL carrier, 30-35000 tonnes it would probably cost ~700m-900m Euros
I think that the best for both Spain and Australia is to wait until the decomision of the Principe de Asturias and then make an agreement to build 2 new STOVL carriers one for each nation... wierd
the major difference is that Australia has responsibility for policing and protecting 1/9th of the worlds waters (inclusive of 12mile limit, EEZ and bluewater)
thats the daily job
I think you guys are overcomplicating the acquistion of a STOVL carrier. If the Govt. wanted a STOVL carrier they would just release a tender for said specification. Any number of international shipbuilders could provide such a ship (USA, UK, Spain, France, Korea) built to budget and spec. A few Australian shipbuilders could also give it a go. A simple 15,000-20,000 tonne STOVL carrier is not much more complex than a destroyer or frigate. It could even have a common propulsion and combat system with the SEA 5000 frigate. It doesn't have to be a copy of someone elses carrier (Cavor, America, Principe de Asutrias, Queen Elizabeth, etc).I think that the best for both Spain and Australia is to wait until the decomision of the Principe de Asturias and then make an agreement to build 2 new STOVL carriers one for each nation... wierd
Having been involved in tender definitions, agree completely
if we wanted a STOVL carrier the RFQ would reflect it.
its not rocket science
The designs for the BSAC Carriers were offered to China in the mid 90's ?
Here is a pic and some links to the old program for those interested, for such a size it would be easy enough to make them STOVL for the RAN or others
21Squad: El Proyecto del portaaviones español SAC 220 / The Spanish aircraft carrier Project SAC 220
The-Blueprints.com - Blueprints > Ships > Ships (Argentina) > Arg CV Bazan BSAC 220 9 de Julio
Last edited:
They are all pretty much the same from what I can gather, just a larger version, the attached pic in my post above (when approved by the mods) will give you a good idea of the general design of the entire family.
As Abraham and GF have pointed out, its not overly complicated to call for designs of what you want, there would be litteraly hundreds of designs by ship builders all over the world sitting ready and waiting and with modern CAD programs very easy to adapt designs to specific requirements
Blas de Lezo
Member
mmmm. Something like that, the original development was meant for the Armada, sac 200 ( an attempt to make 220 cheaper and more exportable) and 220 were offered to Argentina and Brazil since their own carriers needed urgent replacement, but they lacked the founding. Then the 245 appeared, much bigger and in line with what the Armada was looking (prospecting) for.The designs for the BSAC Carriers were offered to China in the mid 90's ?
Here is a pic and some links to the old program for those interested, for such a size it would be easy enough to make them STOVL for the RAN or others
21Squad: El Proyecto del portaaviones español SAC 220 / The Spanish aircraft carrier Project SAC 220
The-Blueprints.com - Blueprints > Ships > Ships (Argentina) > Arg CV Bazan BSAC 220 9 de Julio
The Chinese...?????? I have my own opinions ( that I reserve) about them, but let´s say that a Chinese delegation shows interest every time that a major project is on the table.
.Be aware that I am writting now mostly from memory and my appologies for that.
Regards.
The difference wrt Canberra equipment is probably just the phased array and directors for the Sam missiles. Even Canberras will have the mine and underwater avoidance sonar system. Apart that Cavour is thought as a carrier mainly with all the needed support for the jet ranges, and what is that? Maybe just radar range, but it cannnot be ensured that comms in Cavour wrt Canberra are much better, of course i don´t know it.
The fact is that you point to 750 mill euro per Canberra, and 1.500 mill per Cavour, but those prices for Cavour might include development cost for different systems, which is probably bigger/much bigger wrt the price of the equipment off the shelf without including development finance.
What i mean is that 750 mill euro of difference even being Canberras later in years which would add inflation, that big difference it cannot be just by "purchase of equipment" like locally ranged phased array and director and longer range air radar.
Add to that that Cavour has 4 gas turbines and 6 diesel engines, vs 2 diesel engines and 1 gas turbine plus a couple of auxiliars and that is not electronic equipment.
People think Cavour is light carrier in true, and that the Canberras in hypothetical carrier mode won´t be a good carrier, or not as good as a Cavour but:
-Cavour 2500 sq mts as hangar, Canberra 3000 sq mts (plus apart heavy deck!).
-Cavour +-1200 t. jp5 (1500000 liters of jp5 times 0.8 density wrt water ?!), Canberras 800 t.
-So add a tanker to both ships and you will have similar potential for delivering jets.
The Aussies Aegis radar systems for the three Hobart AWDs is around US$450 million, say US$150 million each, not including the missile launchers or missiles...
FMS: Australia Requests AEGIS Combat System Components
I am sure a Canberra LHD can have more bunkers designed for more weapons and jet fuel bunkers without a huge price increase... Someone has mentioned the Italians are spreading the costs of the Cavour over ten years increasing her price as well...
Plus I have the opinion if Australia ever bought a light carrier for operations in the broad Indian and Pacific Oceans they would need another replenishment ship just to handle the increased replenishment load for the carrier... If Australia did buy a third flat top, I would prefer the purchase of the Spanish light carrier version of the Juan Carlos I/Canberra than another amphibious assault version... And to give the light carrier more freedom for carrier operations, I would also buy at least another destroyer too... I would not wish to tie the carrier necessarily to an amphibious assault task force...
FMS: Australia Requests AEGIS Combat System Components
I am sure a Canberra LHD can have more bunkers designed for more weapons and jet fuel bunkers without a huge price increase... Someone has mentioned the Italians are spreading the costs of the Cavour over ten years increasing her price as well...
Plus I have the opinion if Australia ever bought a light carrier for operations in the broad Indian and Pacific Oceans they would need another replenishment ship just to handle the increased replenishment load for the carrier... If Australia did buy a third flat top, I would prefer the purchase of the Spanish light carrier version of the Juan Carlos I/Canberra than another amphibious assault version... And to give the light carrier more freedom for carrier operations, I would also buy at least another destroyer too... I would not wish to tie the carrier necessarily to an amphibious assault task force...
The thing is the prototype X35 for the F35, b or not, took off in less than 150 mts, and expected ground runway for the F35b is +-165 mts. and that is for ground take off, ie expecting sometimes wind in favour or the contrary, so like in general 165 mts. for taking off if the ship is stopped, that is similar situation to a ground runway with no wind.
So that ship, in carrier mode was 24000 t. for 24 knots max sustained, for Canberras. Even in sea trials the propulsion exceed a bit the expected speed. So you can expect in any config wheter 24000 t. or 27000 t. you have +20 knots sustained speed, that is like 35 kms/h.
So that if the F35b reaches the required speed for taking off from 165 mts with 0 knots, now with the +20 knots the jet will need less than 165 mts, and with the sky jump still less, luckily you could launch the F35b ocuping just 4 spots.
In the sense that for Stovl jets, the speed from the carrier it is not that important wrt Catobar ones. I wouldn´t say that in action the normal cruise speed is +20 knots for fleet oilers and other ships, together with their submarines. The faster you go, the more noise you make and consume fuel, reduce endurance etc.:eek
So that ship, in carrier mode was 24000 t. for 24 knots max sustained, for Canberras. Even in sea trials the propulsion exceed a bit the expected speed. So you can expect in any config wheter 24000 t. or 27000 t. you have +20 knots sustained speed, that is like 35 kms/h.
So that if the F35b reaches the required speed for taking off from 165 mts with 0 knots, now with the +20 knots the jet will need less than 165 mts, and with the sky jump still less, luckily you could launch the F35b ocuping just 4 spots.
In the sense that for Stovl jets, the speed from the carrier it is not that important wrt Catobar ones. I wouldn´t say that in action the normal cruise speed is +20 knots for fleet oilers and other ships, together with their submarines. The faster you go, the more noise you make and consume fuel, reduce endurance etc.:eek
I paste from your link:
"The Government of Australia requested a possible sale of the AEGIS Combat System and select combat system and communication components consisting of 3 AN/SPQ-9B Horizon Search Radars, 3 Cooperative Engagement Capability Systems, 3 Naval Fire Control Systems, 3 Multi-Functional Information Distribution Systems, AN/SLQ-25A Nixie Countermeasure Suite, MK160 Gun Computer System, AIMS MK XII Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) for the Air Warfare Destroyer platform, communication and information distribution systems, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, personnel training and training equipment, support and test equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $450 million. "
That price is not only for Aegis combat system (radars and hardware and software for the Spy), but includes many things of the Aegis Management combat system and other things
That is because i bold one thing and italic the other in above text.
So actually the Spy and its Aegis is less than 150 mill dollar.
Edit: above it is mentioned "Aegis combat system" but let me have doubts whether it is including the Spy there or just other hardware and software related to it. It doesn´t sound bad like 150 mill dollar per Aegis combat system (incl. Spy) as you say.
Really, to bring it home for most folks, what good is a computer monitor without a keyboard, mouse, operating software, printer, and computer? Australia bought the Aegis combat data weapons systems, not just the Spy radar...
I think it would be important to have this capability. As would additional AOR. I would also hope Australia would seek a carrier with large fuel bunkerage as I see that to be something most european designs are light on for our requirements.
Cavour for example is light on fuel (IMO), I also don't like the open edge lifts on a small carrier, esp if Australia was to operate one all the way out in the pacific somewhere. We would really need a different design for our needs.
I think the main reason why people promote existing designs is they are low risk, proven. If we were to seek a carrier, Navatia clearly would be one of the front runners, offering price, capability and experience. But obviously they would not be the only contender.
NO! You have just quoted the extra non AEGIS SPY-1D stuff that the AWD needs from US FMS. Each AEGIS system costs around $500 million and is covered by a different, earlier DSCA advisory.
- Status