Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

^^^^ this

It's such a significant investment that anyone who things they can just pick up a carrier on the cheap is very wide of the mark.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ok if the magic fairy granted the wish and the RAN got three carriers I would think the Canberra Class LHD design would be the starting point because that design has a CV ancestry. It would make sense to have a RAN CV having some commonality with its LHDs. Then as stated you have to have stand up three airwings and all their component parts. The RAN CBG(s) would need extra ships in escort roles over and above any vessels that the RAN have at the moment.

To be honest there is a better chance of NZ getting an ACF of one sqn of B1B Lancer bombers and two sqns of F15 Silent Eagles and we all know that to get the pollies to agree to that we'd have to pump Parliament full of wacky baccy for months, if not years.

 

[John Newman]

^^^^ this

It's such a significant investment that anyone who things they can just pick up a carrier on the cheap is very wide of the mark.

Exactly Rob, and even if there was a suitable carrier or carriers available on the cheap, that's only the very thin edge of the wedge.

Another cost that I forget to mention, apart from everything else I suggested would be needed, is that afloat support capability might have to be increased too.

When you sit down and do the numbers, even roughly, it certainly adds up to a lot of money.

 

[John Newman]

Ok if the magic fairy granted the wish and the RAN got three carriers I would think the Canberra Class LHD design would be the starting point because that design has a CV ancestry. It would make sense to have a RAN CV having some commonality with its LHDs. Then as stated you have to have stand up three airwings and all their component parts. The RAN CBG(s) would need extra ships in escort roles over and above any vessels that the RAN have at the moment.

To be honest there is a better chance of NZ getting an ACF of one sqn of B1B Lancer bombers and two sqns of F15 Silent Eagles and we all know that to get the pollies to agree to that we'd have to pump Parliament full of wacky baccy for months, if not years.

If the magic fairy did grant the wish, I'd run down George Street naked. I think the world is pretty safe from ever seeing me do that!!

In regard to a CV version of the Canberra's, I'd imagine that Navantia might have a design ready for the Spanish Navy if they ever decide to replace the now retired PdA.

And yes the chances of the RAN having three Carriers and NZ getting B1's and F15's are basically 'Buckley's and none'!!

 

[t68]

In regard to a CV version of the Canberra's, I'd imagine that Navantia might have a design ready for the Spanish Navy if they ever decide to replace the now retired PdA.

That's exactly the case, I remember seeing an artists rendition of both proposed carriers put up by the Spanish STOVL which looked a like a JCI without the well deck and BSAC 220 CATOBAR carrier which incedently we will have the airframes soon once F35A starts arriving have the F/A-18F transfer to the RAN

 

[Volkodav]

Something very big and very nasty will have to happen before any Australian government funds a RAN carrier capability and even then . That however does not mean that we can not afford to acquire and sustain such a capability, its just the political will that is lacking on both sides or Australia's parliament, which means it will not happen.

Hawke announced that Melbourne would not be replaced but as cabinet papers have already confirmed, the preceding Frazer government had no intention of going through with the project once Invincible was off the table. A sad and pathetic situation.

The best we could have hoped for would have been an buy / build of one or two Ocean Class LPHs in the late 90s instead of the rust bucket buy. Didn't happen and the rest is history.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The Juan Carlos I LHD design may look roughly similar to a Navantia designed new aircraft carrier but that’s just styling decisions. The two ships couldn’t be more different based on what is inside the hull. Below the waterline the JCI is almost identical to a commercial cruise ship. It’s kind of borderline that this is suitable for an LHD but it’s clearly obvious it isn’t suitable for an aircraft carrier. An inherent lack of speed, maintainability, survivability and a huge surplus of noise.

As to the cost of a carrier capability if it is a modest capability it is much cheaper than often made out. Because the kind of equipment needed to be operated is already within the force elements of the ADF (strike fighters, warships, etc) and specific solutions to raise, train and sustain can be provided via access to the large scale carrier forces of our principal ally (USA). Which is why when the RAN acquired carriers back in the late 1940s it was a relatively painless and simple thing to do using the same kind of relationship that existed then with the RN.

Of course you would have to buy things like the carrier(s) and the aircraft and supporting infrastructure plus recruit more sailors and naval airmen. But it is more than achievable. A single light carrier, 24 F-35s, 24 (more MH-60s), 12 LIFT and some UAV/H AEW plus an additional AOR would not require a more than significant (>10%) addition to the annual defence budget.

 

[Volkodav]

On a different tack I believe Cavour was a contender for the RANs LHD project but can't find ant references to this anywhere with everything being about the Spanish and French options.

It would be interesting to know if the Korean Dokdo Class were looked at, I haven't seen or heard anything suggesting they were but they seem to have fit the requirement. A Korean rather than Spanish path could have been very interesting, imagine a Sejong the Great Class Destroyer being used as the basis of the AWD. Then again I still want to replace some(three or more) of the ANZACs with Hyugas or 22DDHs.

:

 

[StobieWan]

Back in the real world, there's a lovely set of images of HMAS Melbourne in Warships IFR, doing a spectacular impression of a sub doing a crash dive in one image - on a RAS exercise with HMAS Sirius.

That certainly rams home the challenges of working in choppy weather. In the preceding image, the bow is aimed towards the stars and it looks like she's about to take off.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Something very big and very nasty will have to happen before any Australian government funds a RAN carrier capability and even then . That however does not mean that we can not afford to acquire and sustain such a capability, its just the political will that is lacking on both sides or Australia's parliament, which means it will not happen.

The Government just announced a $3 billion spend on the Growler EA capability with hardly a political whimper. A basic light carrier capability wouldn’t cost more than $10 billion to acquire (including air wing and AOR) and utilise existing facilities (naval fighters basing at Williamtown). That’s only three times more than the Growlers. The Navy would probably need an extra 1,000 personnel but the forces have demonstrated a capability to recruit to meet high demand the past 10 years (retention is a different problem). And carriers are cool and much easier to recruit for than refugee taxis or submarines. Frankly once the LHDs start sailing around most people will think we have carriers anyway.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well they look like carriers, kinda. Physiologically they will be our carriers that we can project power from to our region.

Abe is right, they are slow, they have almost no fuel bunkerage other than as a training exercise. So complimentary rather than additional. I do wonder if Australia could get away with just 1 full time carrier. Heck we would struggle to escort anything else anyway.

But look at what the ADF really needs. More patrol boats, more subs, AWD's, maybe some tracked artillery, drones, helicopters, new aircraft, missiles etc. Carrier is way down on a list.

 

[t68]

A dedicated strike carrier like the USN no, but we do need a more robust all round defence which can have the ability for independant action or support the LHD for aerial/surface and subsurface at a distance more appropriate to the task at hand than relying on the RAAF when no land based airfields are close by,also it can support the ARG as well in a timely manner with heavier weapons than ARH

 

[Volkodav]

Ironically the average person on the street assumes we have aircraft carriers as well as many of the other toys we don't have. Many are horrified when the actual size and capability of the ADF is explained to them, they are shocked that more is spent on welfare than on defense.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I do wonder if Australia could get away with just 1 full time carrier. Heck we would struggle to escort anything else anyway.

A single light carrier would fit well into the Navy’s capability. Particularly the amphibious force. It would not need additional escorts. In fact it would provide escort capability to the escorts. That is stand-off air defence and suppression of anti-ship capabilities via strike.

But look at what the ADF really needs. More patrol boats, more subs, AWD's, maybe some tracked artillery, drones, helicopters, new aircraft, missiles etc. Carrier is way down on a list.

I disagree. Capabilities like subs, artillery, patrol boats are in different force elements to the Navy’s surface fleet. Battles between force elements for priority are extremely difficult and complex. But a carrier significantly enhances the survivability of the surface fleet and provides exponential strike capability. The carrier is the first thing you should have in your surface fleet and then how many AWDs, frigates, AORs you can afford as a second priority. The Navy currently has two missile projects (SM6 and TLAM) which are entirely there to try and duplicate some of the enhanced survivability capability a carrier brings.

 

[alexsa]

A single light carrier would fit well into the Navy’s capability. Particularly the amphibious force. It would not need additional escorts. In fact it would provide escort capability to the escorts. That is stand-off air defence and suppression of anti-ship capabilities via strike.

I agree completely and the design of the LHD also give you a platform that can 'maintain' skills while the Carrier is in maintenance [and before anybody yells ................ I know it cannot act as an aircraft carrier] while the carrie can alos duplication some of the LHD functions where required.

The sad fact is I doubt either side of politics will go down this path until it is too late and then will make some sort of idiotic decision (i.e second hand rust traps).

Much as it may seem grand to have I just don't see that the RAN could support a CVF, let alone two.

 

[Volkodav]

A single light carrier would fit well into the Navy’s capability. Particularly the amphibious force. It would not need additional escorts. In fact it would provide escort capability to the escorts. That is stand-off air defence and suppression of anti-ship capabilities via strike.



I disagree. Capabilities like subs, artillery, patrol boats are in different force elements to the Navy’s surface fleet. Battles between force elements for priority are extremely difficult and complex. But a carrier significantly enhances the survivability of the surface fleet and provides exponential strike capability. The carrier is the first thing you should have in your surface fleet and then how many AWDs, frigates, AORs you can afford as a second priority. The Navy currently has two missile projects (SM6 and TLAM) which are entirely there to try and duplicate some of the enhanced survivability capability a carrier brings.

Well basically we have all the escorts and supporting assets, the only thing missing is the carrier and air group.

When Australia retired Melbourne we still had the air group, the Skyhawks, Trackers, Sea kings and Wessex with many years of service left in them. In addition the loss of the ability to get the Sea Kings and their dipping sonars to sea made Ikara and its intended replacement the Super Ikara ineffectual.

Even a simple helicopter only platform would have made the world of difference if it was able to take the Sea Kings to sea in their ASW role. Such a ship or even a couple of such ships could have been easily afforded if the Australian Frigate Project was cancelled, Lynx or Sea Sprite bought instead of the Sea Hawk and the associated modification of the first three FFGs to operate Sea Hawks cancelled.

The other thing that has never made sense to me was why the RAAF didn't lobby for the Skyhawks and Trackers to be transferred to them and then eventually replacing them with and additional squadron of Hornets and another of Orions. Then again the RAAF do seem to have a tendency of killing off capability rather than growing it.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I agree completely and the design of the LHD also give you a platform that can 'maintain' skills while the Carrier is in maintenance [and before anybody yells ................ I know it cannot act as an aircraft carrier] while the carrie can alos duplication some of the LHD functions where required.

Its part of what the JCI was designed for. Also when LHD(s) aren't available a light carrier can provide a lot of their capability. Which would mean the RAN has two major aviation capable ships availble all the time for disaster relief.

If anyone wants to conceptualise what a contemporary light carrier for the RAN would look like see the attached image. This was a basic sketch design prepared for the RN as part of their scoping for the CVF. This was the small STOVL carrier option. A full milspec ship like this with the LHD combat system, self-defence weapons (ESSM, Phalanx), built in Australia wouldn’t cost more than $3 billion.

 

[alexsa]

Its part of what the JCI was designed for. Also when LHD(s) aren't available a light carrier can provide a lot of their capability. Which would mean the RAN has two major aviation capable ships availble all the time for disaster relief.

If anyone wants to conceptualise what a contemporary light carrier for the RAN would look like see the attached image. This was a basic sketch design prepared for the RN as part of their scoping for the CVF. This was the small STOVL carrier option. A full milspec ship like this with the LHD combat system, self-defence weapons (ESSM, Phalanx), built in Australia wouldn’t cost more than $3 billion.

You have to wonder if Navantia have a light STOVL carrier design in development. Even based on JCI sans dock which greater power production and more powerful pods would be a pretty good size and could provide the facilites required to sustain a small air group. Maybe even use the same production method as the two LHD's


Personally I prefer this in lieu of a third LHD as is mooted by some ....... this would be a good option......... now back to reallity and deficits.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You have to wonder if Navantia have a light STOVL carrier design in development.

You'd probably be better sourcing the design for a CVL from G&C and/or the USN. But I agree about it being a better option than a third LHD or even an AS built LSD as scoped for JP 2048/4C.

 

[Volkodav]

Does anyone know why the Giuseppe Garibaldi design was eliminated from the RAN carrier replacement program? It made it to the final three before being dropped leaving only the SCS and Modified LPH options before the Invincible offer. I would have thought it was a pretty good match for the RAN requirement.