Aussie optimist
Member
The common misconception with the thai carrier is it can't actually operate as a carrier as it has no aircraft it can fly off its deck. My wife who is thai refers to it as the royal roundabout
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Ok where to start.....
The actual platform need not be that expensive (by the way are you talking $336million US in 1995 or 2011 a very big difference) however the airgroup will be extremely expensive. Add the platform cost to the airgroup cost and then throw in the training overhead for starting from scratch and the figure will be somewhat horrific
If you have an existing capability i.e. a carrier and a fleet air arm, then it is worth while spending to maintain it. You just make sure you never need to replace your platfom and entire FAA at the same time (which is one of the things that killed the Melbourne replacement). You upgrade your existing carrier and buy new fighters, a few years down the track you replace your ASW helos, further down the track you replace your carrier with a new one that operates your existing aircraft so on so forth...
Right now we are in the process of building AEGIS destroyers, LHDs and upgrading our frigate force. This is a huge undertaking in any terms but specifically the training load on the RAN is phenomenal even without taking retention issues into account. The logistics involved in the RAN going for a fixed wing FAA at this time, even if there was the political will and budget, will be a killer, we just wouldn't beable to get the trained crews together or up to scatch for possibly decades.
As for using our LHDs to operate a small number of F-35Bs, it is very unlikely that our ships could even be modified, at this late stage of construction, to do any more than be a platform for deck operation, take off and landing training. They do not have the fuel bunkerage or magazine capacity to operate fixed wing combat aircraft, they do not have the workshops, tool/supply/spares stores to support these aircraft. It is as simple as that.
Aircraft carriers can be used as LPHs because they are more sophisticated and more capable (in terms of operating aircraft) than they need to be to carry out the role. It doesn’t work the other way around, and LPH/LHD lacks the minimum sophistication and capability required to operate fixed wing combat aircraft. The USN Wasp class are an exception to this but they are 33% larger than our LHDs and specifically designed to do so.
The worlds most expensive royal yatch. I actually like the design but its use, or more accurately in Thailands case, lack of use is the perfect example of why it is not worth buying a carrier unless you have the political will and funding to ensure you do it properly. The limited operational service Chakri Naruebet has seen has all been disaster relief and on one occasion the evacuation of Thai citizens during civil unrest in Cambodia. These are role that could have more affordably, more efficiently and to be honest more effectively have been carried out by a small amphibious ship LPH or similar.The common misconception with the thai carrier is it can't actually operate as a carrier as it has no aircraft it can fly off its deck. My wife who is thai refers to it as the royal roundabout
t68
Well-Known Member
If the ADF today started the ball rolling on a ASW carrier it would be 8-10 years before it arrived, training will not be the biggest hurdle for the ADF, funding will be.
In a few years LHD will be operational a lot of the skills will be similar to an ASW carrier in respect to aircraft movement, refuelling aircraft etcetera. We currently have personnel on exchange learning the trade with the USMC and RN.
The ADF would be in a similar situation to the RN relearning fixed wing carrier ops for cat and trap but with USN help when the 1st QE are available they will hit the ground running, we wont be in the same shoes as the Chinese how have to literally learn from scratch, but we can train to fly the aircraft from light carriers from the USMC. So the fundamental corporate knowledge of operating a light carrier is available before the carrier is operational.
That is not entirely correct; under current budgeting levels an ASW carrier would suck the RAN dry. Current ADF expenditure is running at approximately 1.8%GDP and dropping under the current government, since the high of the 1960’s when it went as high as 2.6% when we were committed to Vietnam for 10 years and running a light carrier. Granted the comparative cost to build and maintain equipment from the 1960’s compared to modern day equivalent means more of those dollars would be spent on the initial outlay and maintenance cost. Funding for the carrier is only one part of the problem as Abraham has stated in post 7863 it’s more than just the carrier itself and aircraft, additional logistic ships would be needed for larger requirements of POL, EO.
But you are correct the political good will for defence just doesn’t exit for those residing in the lodge at the present time.
What if the RAAF runs out of bombs and missiles? Army has a LOT more artillery ammunition than the RAAF has bombs.
What's the point of such a stupid argument?
Or you could bolt a Vigilance AEW pod or 2 to the side (s) of an MH-60R, MRH-90 or perhaps even a Tiger:
Lockheed Martin UK offers Vigilance AEW system to Malaysia
You can even get it with the APG-81 if you want, save on costs a bit perhaps...
Good times...
And what aircraft would you fly off of it? As I said, there aren't any more Harriers.
The Invincibles were regularly used in the LPH role, even after Ocean was commissioned. Ark Royal was even refitted to improve her LPH capability after Ocean was built.
Note that Ocean was a fraction of the price of a CVS.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
No, experience shows that ADF defence programmes typically take 14+ years between programme start and IOC.
That would mean an IOC date of ~2026 if such a programme were initiated today and ran to a typical schedule. And that is for just the vessel itself, that does not include anything about expanding the FAA or increasing the numbers of personnel to man the vessel(s) or operate the aircraft.
Could the ADF get an ASW carrier into service with current resources? The answer is certainly. Doing so would however have a significant and significantly negative impact on the ADF's ability to conduct operations apart from operating the ASW carrier.
As for the repeated assertions that the ADF needs Harriers... That is getting tiresome. I suggest people re-read earlier portions of this thread before banging on about carrier ops.
-Cheers
what could we do with a carrier that we cant already do or in the future will be able to do with the AWDs, ANZAC II, Collins II and RAAF aircraft?
short answer is not much.
rather than wasting the money on a carrier (even if its only an escort carrier) i would buy a third LHD and flesh out the Balikpapan replacement.
i think you should go back and read what i said about needing atleast 3 carriers to maintain the capability.
P.S this is it for me, done with carrier talk now im just gonna ignore it.
LOL. Only if you think not much is provide layered air defence, shaping strike, close air support and so on to the fleet. Not to mention massive increase in ASW and ASuW capability. The RAAF can only provide that within a very close radius of a land air base (200 NM tops) and as part of a list of competing priorities. There is a reason naval aviation has dominated naval warfare for the past 70 years.
so your saying an escort carrier 1/2 the size of an LHD will massively increace the RANs combat prowess?
An escort carrier? That was something the world hasn’t seen since the 1950s. But if you are referring to a light carrier like the Spanish Principe de Asturias then yes. In particular its 12 STOVL strike fighters and other enhanced aviation capabilities (ASW, AEW).
But how much of this is Australia going to be able to do even if we do get a carrier. We would struggle to justify a single carrier let alone 3, plus crew, plus training, plus aircraft, plus escorts etc. Even if we did all that would it be the best way to spend our money if we have no troops to put on the ground or no ships to protect our territories.
I think this was SAS's point, not that the naval air has no place in modern warfare, but local naval fixed wing aviation would only play a limited part in Australia's defence policy.
Even in the heady days of the 1950's. Armed with 2 WWII surplus carriers, hundreds of trained up WW2/post WW2 pilots, aircraft etc. We only had marginal use for a carrier, usually in combination with US and RN carriers.
Its within that Australian context of what can we afford to do in peace time.
While the RAAF is limited, refuelling assets can be leased or provided by allies. Allies tend to offer non combatant assets more freely. RAAF operating in conjunction with US and UK assets would probably be able to offer protection further out.
t68
Well-Known Member
I believe Abraham stated a starting a minimums displacement of 20000t not exactly half, HTMS Chakri Naruebet along with Giuseppe Garibaldi (551)as is would be to small to accept F35B as Swerve point out some time ago, but it is a starting point to flesh out the design.
I believe Cavour would be the most logical choice a known design and can also perform strategic sea lift as well if need, now that Japan has eased restrictions on export 22DHH could also fill the role both have similar dimension to a WASP but without the displacement. I am sure the UK would be interested in building a modern version of invincible class carrier. Australia would be spoiled for choice and a builder eager to build them.
A lot of this was discussed the page previous… If you and Wannabe are going to pop back into this debate without keeping up to date then that makes things very hard for the rest of us.
None of those six points are true in the slightest.
With 5 MRTTs the RAAF will not be deficient of IFR to sustain only four squadrons. The problem is it is very inefficient to sustain aircraft overhead far from base. Especially if they have to be ready for air to air battle and strike against a defended threat. It’s hard enough sustaining fighter orbits at range when they are just carrying a bomb or two in a permissive air environment.
Even having 2x Serv F-35B's greatly complicates the job for an attacking force
Makes it much more dangerous for an MPA to gain info, It means that the attackers will now need an escort (unless they want to get absolutely smashed) which will likely reduce the number of strikers, the F-35's will likely attrite the number of strikers anyway, and it makes it much harder for the strikers to achieve simultaneous attacks to overwhelm the defences.
And whilst cruise missiles are great, they generally are inflexible for mobile targets etc...
However, I really believe that the only way you are going to need this capability is if you see Australia going alone (i.e. no USN) against an enemy with the capability to launch a significant anti ship strike with the ability to overwhelm say an AWD and 2-3 ASMD Upgraded Anzacs AND you are outside the coverage of land based fighters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difficulty with land base aircraft providing CAP for a fleet is often the transit time & fuel requirements to get home, plus it is effectively a waste of assets to have a bunch of fighters sitting over the fleet when there is nothing going on. You really need to have great intel so you can ideally deck launch the fighters with enough time to get there 10 mins before the bad guys. If you are talking >250NM you will want about 30-40minutes of heads up... which is where Carriers are great, because as soon as you launch the fighter off the Bow they are in position.
Obviously having a tanker makes it much easier to keep a presence over the fleet for a reasonable amount of time and given the longer legs of an F-35 over a FA18 for example expect that the distance they can provide a worthwhile presence to increase significantly.
Ok, now I'm a little confused but willing to learn.
- Sydney and Melbourne weren't WWII surplus? RAN site disagrees AFAICT.
- They weren't commissioned in the 1950's? (Sydney comm 1948 decom 1958 then 62-73, Melb comm 55-82) Seems like there was a time in the 1950's where we had two carriers. Again RAN site indicates this was the case. Really? Could have sworn..
- There were no service persons in the ADF in the 1950 that served in WWII? Again, there are extensive service records available to show there were a number of veterans still in the forces in the 1950's. Capt Galfrey certainly had. Im sure I can find a large number of officers etc. Again, could have sw.... When I last spoke to naval vets of that era...
- That only 1 carrier was ever used in active war? (Sydney in Korean), again as part of a larger mission involving many nations. I would be interested in any further information. While Melbourne and Sydney were operational during the Vietnam war, I don't think they directly took part in it as combatants. Sydney certainly was critical in terms of moving supplies and people. But that's not relevant to this discussion.
Really? I'm that far off base? Surely you jest.
Do we need to sustain aircraft overhead far from base? Who are we fighting? Indonesia? Chinese carrier? The USN? Fiji? NZ? Certainly your right on we can't efficiently sustain aircraft far from base. Do we have to? Regionally there aren't a lot of aircraft to fend off. Sure there's plenty of targets to bomb, but bombing runs are different from sustained air space sanitisation. Given we struggle to put hulls into the water, etc and money looks like it will be tight for a while, is it where we need to pump cash?
All this carrier talk is giving me a head ache. I might take a break from posting and lurk for a while. I can't participate in this discussion nor do I think its terribly worthwhile. It feels like 100 people trying to shape rock using their craniums. Initially curious (to watch, why? what is the motive), but ultimately painful and a tad pointless. Sometimes people take a break from the rock to shape each others heads, then go back to the rock.
Abe PM me if you feel compelled to resolve my misunderstanding of RAN history, I would hate to pollute this thread.
Continue shaping..
as my father served on Sydney during the Korean War I can offer some contribution here
Sydney conducted missions on her own, but yes, most of the time as part of UN managed events. she often had higher sortie rates than bigger brethren
Last edited:
The two carrier force was approved in the mid 1940s when defence funding was low and so was the threat. Because war experience had demonstrated that naval aviation was crucial to naval capability. By the mid 50s the force was cut to a single carrier and reduced in scope to the ASW role with Sea Venoms for ‘hack the shad’.
Neither Nuships Terrible or Magestic (that became HMA Ships Sydney and Melbourne) ever served in the RN and were purchased incomplete by the RAN at full cost value not surplus rates. The RAN received no war surplus aircraft all were new built and there were very few personnel even in the late 40s that had served in WWII. The implication that the RAN carrier fleet as established in the late 1940s was a cheap WWII knock off is completely wrong.
I don’t know where you got this from. HMA Ships Sydney, Vengeance and Melbourne from 1948 to 1982 and their air wings were the primary effort of the RAN and their most powerful asset. They served multiple operational tours to Korea and South East Asia. If Melbourne hadn’t been in refit at the time it would have served a tour in VietNam. Just because RN and USN carriers happened to be in operation nearby doesn’t diminish their effort. If you would like to point out the Australian only conflict that happened in this time frame that they somehow missed you might have a point.
Its within that Australian context of what can we afford to do in peace time.
While the RAAF is limited, refuelling assets can be leased or provided by allies. Allies tend to offer non combatant assets more freely. RAAF operating in conjunction with US and UK assets would probably be able to offer protection further out.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status