Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
The competition at this stage wasn’t just about ships but about ship design packages for build in Australia. G&C were offering the SCS and Ingalls the “Modified LPH” (ie new ship that had the hullform of the LPH as its starting point). The then new Italian carrier would have presumably been offered by Fincantieri and maybe for some reason their offering was not up to the same standard as the Americans. Since each designer was funding in the millions to progress a design package for build in Australia the Italians were probably dropped to save money.
The RAN hasn’t considered a large sized strike or fleet carrier since the 1960s. In the late 40s when Terrible and Majestic were acquired to become HMA Ships Sydney and Melbourne the RAN started planning their replacement. The idea was to build in Australia the next British fleet carrier design or at least something along the lines of Centaur class (eg HMS Hermes). The plan was to build a new ship building dock over the top of Spectacle Island that would link Drummoyne with Cockatoo Island. This was actually a pretty serious plan until the early 1950s when both the world war scare (not enough time) of Korea and the death of Stalin (meaning no more war scare) killed it off.
The next major plan for a strike carrier was in the early 1960s when with the threat of a belligerent Indonesia (West Papua and Confrontation) and the growing war in VietNam saw the RAN request a USN Essex class carrier with F-4B Phantom air wing (and Tracers and Trackers). This was turned down for cost and HMAS Melbourne was upgraded and a new American air wing (Skyhawks and Trackers) acquired in its place. There were also a couple of considerations of acquiring RN surplus carriers in the late 50s to late 60s to replace Melbourne. But these were just considered along the lines of a better ship with more life replacing the older ship and all rejected because of higher operational costs.
At the current time even a light fleet carrier with 12-16 F-35Bs onboard would provide a massive boost to the survivability of the RAN’s fleet. These aircraft would provide far more shaping strike than the RAN could ever ship in TLAMs and much better over the horizon air defence than any number of SM6 missiles. Plus they could also provide expeditionary long range anti-ship and close air support capabilities which the ADF has no capability to provide.
Your point in quoting others?
Oh if it was choice between getting a carrier and a 3rd LHD, you would think a carrier would win every time. But I don't think the RAN will ever be asked that question.
IMO I think the LHD's are going to be over used most of the time (perhaps not for intended purpose). Boat people, disasters, peacekeeping/policing, good will/dfat, allied operations, training, piracy. They are going to be deployed wherever the government focus is at the time (ie constantly).
Looking around however, Rudd is connecting us to PNG. Its not just about refugees, its more about regional stability and ties. 3rd LHD seems more in the realm of possibility than a completely sensible approach to a carrier as there isn't any political will to get one. Perhaps if the US was to make considerable cuts to its carrier force.
IMO I think the LHD's are going to be over used most of the time (perhaps not for intended purpose). Boat people, disasters, peacekeeping/policing, good will/dfat, allied operations, training, piracy. They are going to be deployed wherever the government focus is at the time (ie constantly).
Looking around however, Rudd is connecting us to PNG. Its not just about refugees, its more about regional stability and ties. 3rd LHD seems more in the realm of possibility than a completely sensible approach to a carrier as there isn't any political will to get one. Perhaps if the US was to make considerable cuts to its carrier force.
they've survived sequestration - so phat chance
You don't need a third LHD if your primary role is disaster relief. Two is heaps. The need for a third LHD is if you want to sustain a battalion group sized ADAS 24-7.
In the unlikely event this would happen it wouldn't help the RAN much. USN carriers are far too big for the RAN to operate short of a national mobilisation. A small CVL requires about one quarter or less of the resources needed to operate an American sized carrier.
Last edited:
With the majority of this money staying in Australia, this is a stimulis package I could support.
t68
Well-Known Member
If for instance we did get the green light for a CV and choose to use the exiting Super Hornets then buy F35C at a later date, would the French carrier CDG be the minimum size required. As I recall the recovery of E2D Hawkeyes were marginal at best and F35C being heavier than Super Hornets and the catapults being shorter than a USN CV could they operate from her or would we need something along the proposed CATOBAR UK CVF to future proof ourselves.
protoplasm
Active Member
Going to a CATOBAR carrier of any description is going to mean much larger ship. If the RAN is going to get an aviation focused anything it'll be of a similar size to an LHD. F35C and E2D would need a ship of at least CVF size to be able to safely operate them, particularly recover them.
Based on the Treasurers recently released budget position the navy may be able to purchase a new RHIB....
John Newman
The Bunker Group
As Gf said, the US Carriers have survived sequestration, but even if our good American friends said, 'hey we'll give you one really cheap', apart from their huge size, the matter of nuclear propulsion would no doubt be the start and end of that conversation.
The same could be said for the French, if CdG was available, no doubt being nuclear powered it would end that discussion pretty quick too.
So of all the aircraft capable ships currently in service or soon to be in service, what's left, if of course one became available on the cheap?
The QE class, are they too big? JC1, similar to the Canberra's, the Italian Cavour maybe?
About the only other ship that I think might fit the bill would be the 45,000t LHA, USS America.
The same could be said for the French, if CdG was available, no doubt being nuclear powered it would end that discussion pretty quick too.
So of all the aircraft capable ships currently in service or soon to be in service, what's left, if of course one became available on the cheap?
The QE class, are they too big? JC1, similar to the Canberra's, the Italian Cavour maybe?
About the only other ship that I think might fit the bill would be the 45,000t LHA, USS America.
I dare say the point being made was that if the US reduced their carrier fleet, Australia would be less able to rely on US naval dominance to provide for our security, and therefore that Australia would seek to improve our own capabilities by building a carrier. Not that Australia would buy and operate a US CVN.
Well that makes more sense!
Though if the ADF is serious about deploying a 2 x LHD task force independently (by ourselves without USN support) in anything other than a low intensity operation we need a light carrier.
I don’t think second hand carriers from anyone would be a serious option anymore. Back in the 40s and 50s they were plentiful thanks to the surplus of WWII built ships. But now all such ships are worked to the bone in their parent Navy.
However if the RAN was funded for a carrier a range of options could be explored in terms of size and aircraft landing, takeoff type. I’ve focused on a CVL of around 20,000 tonnes like a modern Invincible because it is the cheapest, easiest and most balanced type of capability to acquire. An indication of what’s out there can be seen from back in 1997 and the RN’s exploration of options for the CVF. They looked at seven different sizes from a 15 STOVL fighter carrier through to a 40 CTOL fighter carrier.
Last edited:
Bingo, sorry, I didn't make that clear. Im crazy but i'm not CVN crazy.
If the US was to reduce its carrier force by say 2 or 3 supercarriers and cut its amphib force as well then that might create a reason to go shopping for a RAN carrier. Which Cavour sized would be suitable.
We are reliant on the US umbrella. If they left or unable to act, could be for several reasons, then maybe. Personally I think the unable to act thing is a bigger reality. There is tension, US plays a global strategic game. It may be possible it is unable to umbrella us. Amphibs are about being more self reliant. You can't dictate when you want US amphibs or carriers to help out our little problems, priorities may lie elsewhere.
I find it interesting that the RAN was able to maintain at least one carrier for three decades when the Australian population was smaller, the economy weaker and the nation as a whole less advanced and sophisticated than it is now.
It is quite clear, in hindsight, that a life extension for Melbourne or acquisition of Hermes and a local build of one or two light carriers during the 80's / 90's would have been affordable and even sensible. Following the UKs Falkland experience it should have been a priority, and our complete lack of options following the first Fijian Coup should have served to reinforce this.
I have done some more reading and it struck me that Italy was producing pretty much what Australia needed at the time it was needed. The Garibaldi class carrier, Maestrale class frigate, Durand de la Penne class destroyer, San Giorgio class amphib in addition to the Lerici class MCMVs we actually did get. Each of these would have filled a RAN need, had a level of commonality with some of the existing systems and could have been built locally with updated systems, i.e. Mk41 VLS.
Sea Harrier F/A2 and Sea King AEWs backing up an expanded Sea King Mk50 force would have been very nice.
It is quite clear, in hindsight, that a life extension for Melbourne or acquisition of Hermes and a local build of one or two light carriers during the 80's / 90's would have been affordable and even sensible. Following the UKs Falkland experience it should have been a priority, and our complete lack of options following the first Fijian Coup should have served to reinforce this.
I have done some more reading and it struck me that Italy was producing pretty much what Australia needed at the time it was needed. The Garibaldi class carrier, Maestrale class frigate, Durand de la Penne class destroyer, San Giorgio class amphib in addition to the Lerici class MCMVs we actually did get. Each of these would have filled a RAN need, had a level of commonality with some of the existing systems and could have been built locally with updated systems, i.e. Mk41 VLS.
Sea Harrier F/A2 and Sea King AEWs backing up an expanded Sea King Mk50 force would have been very nice.
Here is just some food for thought. Now I got this info from the World Bank website and its for 2013.
Italy who has the Cavour class carrier (which seems to be the a good fit for Australia) has the worlds 9th largest economy coming in with a GDP of approx US$2 trillion and has a population of around 65mil.
Australia comes in 12th at just over US$1.5 trillion and a pop. of 23mil.
Now this is the one i found interesting, India (who has aspirations of having 3 carriers) comes in at 10th with a GDP of only US$1.8 trillion. YES i know they have a pop. of 1.2 billion and they probably pay their sailors peanuts compared to Aussie sailors, but surely we can afford an aircraft carrier (maybe if we get it built in India lol).
Italy who has the Cavour class carrier (which seems to be the a good fit for Australia) has the worlds 9th largest economy coming in with a GDP of approx US$2 trillion and has a population of around 65mil.
Australia comes in 12th at just over US$1.5 trillion and a pop. of 23mil.
Now this is the one i found interesting, India (who has aspirations of having 3 carriers) comes in at 10th with a GDP of only US$1.8 trillion. YES i know they have a pop. of 1.2 billion and they probably pay their sailors peanuts compared to Aussie sailors, but surely we can afford an aircraft carrier (maybe if we get it built in India lol).
John Newman
The Bunker Group
There is no doubt that Australia is a wealthy country and there is no doubt that it has the financial capacity, the issue is more about where we spend our national wealth.
Unless the Government, and continuing future Governments, change our Foreign and Defence policies and devote more of our GDP to Defence spending and importantly, maintain it at a higher level too, then it's not going to happen.
And with the deficit now blowing out to $30Billion, it certainly isn't going to happen this year or coming years either.
I came across this on The Australian this morning, this is part of the article:
.
It's things like this that makes me worry more about what we are going to loose or can't afford to obtain and far less about if we will ever see a Carrier in service.
We are spending $25 billion a year on defence and a huge slice of it is going to things that don’t have anything to do with generating military capability for Australia. A huge amount of needless bureaucracy and administration that could be cut and the self-licking ice-creams that run them made redundant and save money in the billions per annum. If an efficiency cleaver is applied to defence there will be plenty of money to fund new capability within current allocations. Not to mention a restoration of 2% of GDP per annum for defence funding. Combine those two (efficiency and 2%) and any kind of realistic wish list for the ADF is possible: four Beersheba brigades, light carrier, UCAV, SOF infill/exfill.
Heah we can conceive and design good ships in Australia too. Vessels like the Codock/Vickers DDL, Protector AOE and the Tenix OPC are what the Navy has wanted and needed far more than any Italian ship. And for other areas there is no shortage of good ship designs from America. SCS, Barbel, DDG-51, and amphib ship (various options to fit) have all been available and the design expertise to customise and upgrade them for the Navy.
- Status