What role did our previous carriers play?
Has that role disappeared, or is it done by something else in the ADF these days?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Has that role disappeared, or is it done by something else in the ADF these days?
King Wally
Active Member
taken from Wiki...
Carriers haven't in my opinion anyway been a glowing example of value for money investment for us historically. While yes they were used occasionally I don't think they ever justified the mammoth running costs and over focus that was given to them over other assets.
Moving forward I guess you could say these roles will be handled between the RAAF land based assets and the LHD's. The AWD will also provide air defence to any deployments naturally.
If your opinion is formed by your last sentence then you are leading yourself astray with falsehoods. The cost of HMS Invincible and 20ish Sea Harriers in the 1980s for the RAN was the same as two FFGs and 16 Seahawks. Running costs of a USN super carrier may be mammoth but for a light fleet carrier they aren’t much more in fuel and spares than an Aegis type destroyer. There are more crew compared to a destroy but almost all of them are to support the aircraft and would exist on shore for a similar number of land based fighters. Carriers are proven to be very effective investments of money in terms of deliverance of combat power. Since they are key enablers in allowing a naval force to survive in a battlefield their efficiency is magnified is savings through lower losses (just ask the RN in the Falklands about that).
As to the Australian experience of carriers again I think it’s clear you are running on more ignorance than fact in writing them off. They provided a significant input into the Korean War and were staggeringly more important than the Army and RAAF commitment. During the Indonesian Confrontation they were probably our primary line of deterrence against aggression to PNG or northern Australia. Which considering Indonesia attacked every other neighbour they had at the time (except the Philippines with their massive US bases) we did quite well – being one of the 2 out of 6 not to get attacked.
One out of two carriers made the VietNam War deployment possible which was a pretty significant return on investment. While there was some consideration to HMAS Melbourne deploying to Yankee Station during this war this wasn’t realised.
This is a pretty impressive rap sheet for 25 years service alongside the peace time capability. There are many ADF force elements that haven’t come close. In terms of combat units the carriers were fourth after the Army’s reinforced infantry brigades, special forces and Navy surface combatants for operational use.
This is an observation formed over the last 2 weeks.
This is one of the few threads on this forum which has not required much of an overwatch.
There have been times over the last week where a few of the Mods and DefProfs have collectively scratched their heads in silence and gone WTF??
It's time to fix the atmosphere and settle down
To say that we're disappointed is a bit of an understatement
Play the ball, not the player
This is one of the few threads on this forum which has not required much of an overwatch.
There have been times over the last week where a few of the Mods and DefProfs have collectively scratched their heads in silence and gone WTF??
It's time to fix the atmosphere and settle down
To say that we're disappointed is a bit of an understatement
Play the ball, not the player
seatmarbella
Banned Member
Even "Ots most or all built in Australia" would make a giant saving, because just small savings in 36.800 million is enourmous money. Yard prices for blocks in Australia shouldnt be much more expensive than in Europe.
So many things to be done at the same time, 4th awd, antiballistic capabilities for the 4 awds, more money put on the ceafar developments for the Anzacs, more asw assets, more capable or more numbers of Opvs, more of whatever Australia wants, f35, tanks, helicopters, missiles, satellites, etc. And of course save money hehe.
Save in subs and it can boost all Australian arms.
seatmarbella
Banned Member
It depends on the operational area, how far it is, Scorpene 50 days 6500 nm plus aip range, S80 50-60 days 8000 nm plus aip range (big), or Collins 70 days 11000 nm.
I dont know if Australia really needs to go that far away, because continental Asia, Indonesia, Malaisia, Phillipines and vast zones of oceans are inside ots specs, does Australia really need those extra nm and days if subs are based in the north coast of Australia? Or is it an extra spec which doesnt gives any obvious advantage and causes an expensive sub program with risk?
It depends on where in the world map you put the endurance line around Australian bases.
There has been quite a good discussion about OTS subs and their capabilities vis a vis the RAN requirements through out this thread. One of the main threads of that discussion is that the OTS non nuke subs, especially the current European ones, do not come up to RAN requirements on range alone. Another point is that nuclear subs are not an option. I think that you need to go and have a read back through the thread about OTS subs and what people on here, some of whom have extensive familiarity with submarine service, have posted and conclusions reached.
Seconded, the topic has been quite thoroughly discussed and I've lost count of how many times the S-80 and AIP have been brought up... I know it's a lot of thread to read through but you'll get something out of it in terms of understanding Australia's requirements, for sure.
the road runner
Active Member
If i recall right ,one thing that a big submarine such as Collins gives is power,that in turn lets you run all the fancy top secret sensors,sonar's,ect.The battery's in a Collins is close to 400 ton. 1/4 the weight of some OTS design's.That's a big battery.
justsomeaussie
Member
The sub skills plan is some interesting reading.
Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan Seen as Good Start
Australia: Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan Seen as Good Start >> Naval Today
If people want to have a good understanding of the problems and skillsets required for the Future Sub, then its worth getting hold of the unclassified version of the RAND report done for the RAN and published in 2011
I would hope that an incoming Defence Minister reads the classified version before making statements to the press.....
I would hope that an incoming Defence Minister reads the classified version before making statements to the press.....
Not wanting to disrespect any contribution from any of the services in Korea, but that would be a seemingly difficult statement to justify given that both 3RAR and 77SQN were there for the entire war. Additionally 1RAR served for 1 year before being replaced for the last few months by 2RAR.
HMAS Sydney was there for ~4Months of which 64 days were in the operational area. HMAS Sydney flew 2366 sorties whilst 77SQN flew almost 19000..
Definately a significant contribution, staggeringly more important I think not.
justsomeaussie
Member
Not so far different for the RAN getting Afghanistan and Iraq gongs but never setting foot in either. The MEAO is a dangerous place!
Before anyone goes any further...
We're not going to get into a tribal discussion on the merits of one service over the other and the relevance or merit of their gongs
No good will come of it.
Its not on
Thread closed pending Mod review
We're not going to get into a tribal discussion on the merits of one service over the other and the relevance or merit of their gongs
No good will come of it.
Its not on
Thread closed pending Mod review
weegee
Active Member
Regarding the white paper and the comments about getting new patrol and supply vessels ASAP? Is this a sweeping statement? I mean does the government or the navy have designs in mind or maybe selected yet? what will the time frame be for construction of these vessels?
1) Does everyone think that the patrol boats will be Cape Class? if so how are they going to be any different to the Armidales? or have significant lessens have been learnt from the Armidales and are the Cape Class a heap stronger structurally?
2)Regarding the re supply vessels is everyone thinking that the new vessels will be a SPS Cantabria design considering that Mr Smith eluded to perhaps leasing a supply ship in the meantime you would have to think that would be SPS Cantabria or am I way off?
1) Does everyone think that the patrol boats will be Cape Class? if so how are they going to be any different to the Armidales? or have significant lessens have been learnt from the Armidales and are the Cape Class a heap stronger structurally?
2)Regarding the re supply vessels is everyone thinking that the new vessels will be a SPS Cantabria design considering that Mr Smith eluded to perhaps leasing a supply ship in the meantime you would have to think that would be SPS Cantabria or am I way off?
justsomeaussie
Member
The way I understand it is the Armidale would be replaced 1 for 1 as each vessel hits the 10 year mark with a navalised Cape Class. Essentially the current Cape with a gun. Some quite positive reports coming back about how a lot of the bug bears with the Armidales have been fixed. But first of class is still undergoing OT&E. so the jury is out. What's interesting is now Austal is handling the support and maintenance subcontracting to DMS which is the inverse of the Armidales.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the Armidales go into a refurb and then sold/given to the Pacific Patrol Boat program.
Trackmaster
Member
Quite an article in the Financial Review today on the possible local build for the refuellers.
Would the most likely outcome be a lease deal on the existing Spanish ship, followed by a repeat of the Canberra class deal. Build the hulls in Spain, and complete them alongside the wharf here?
Labor red-faced over costly refueller plan
Interesting, but Davies is wrong, we actually have far more capability here than we use. There are skilled people and industry members who could do most of the ship, including sensors, combat system and propulsion, its just that we decide to ignore local capability and buy stuff from OS because we assume (often incorrectly) that it is better.
- Status