Carriers for the RAN am I dreaming or ill look at one when i'm 50

[contedicavour]

You hope. In ending I would ask all of you to compare the world today with the one 20 to 30 years ago and ask yourself, "who forecasted it"? The future holds no end to possible scenarios with the only absolute fact is that, without question, there will be another war. There is always another war around the corner and the only real defense against it starting is the maintenance of military strength.

Fully agree. In the early '50s who would have forecasted that in 20 years all the colonial empires would have been wiped out. In the mid-'60s most people believed in the "domino theory" that with a communist Vietnam all the other regional countries would fall like dominos to communism. Laos or Cambodia aside, nothing happened. In the '80s few people would have foreseen the very rapid expansion (in quantity, and to a certain extent in quality) of Chinese naval assets. In the early '90s nobody foresaw the outbreak of extremist islamist terrorism worldwide.
So how do we know what will happen in the 2020s ??
Since you need approx 8 years to build a carrier and make it operative (and that is for experienced Western shipyards), you'd better be good at forecasting future threats.

Oh btw I'm not suggesting Australia builds 2 Queen Elisabeth huge carriers, just supporting presence of F35Bs aboard big LHDs.

cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Oh btw I'm not suggesting Australia builds 2 Queen Elisabeth huge carriers, just supporting presence of F35Bs aboard big LHDs.

cheers

An excellent idea, which I have supported for a long time. Giving RAN an "at sea air support" capability would be well worth the investment. The effects to our amphibious capability (which I don't really subscribe to, given the modularity of the SPS) could be mitigated with an appropriately designed "sea lift ship" further down the track...

 

[swerve]

First off Australia has her treaty obligations. Secondly you have already lost many citizens in the GWOT and its not beyond the impossible that a regional country becomes a open terror supporting state that's hostile to Australia. But the biggest reason is that the future of this world is going to be one big crunch for resources. AND Australia has, and is in a region, that is going to become very important for resource hungry powers. Most of all China! Two examples I would use would be New Guinea and New Caledonia.
.... then your country is heavily dependant on maritime commerce, has a huge coastline, and is in a region of the world that has a lot of potential for conflict.
...

Not my country, mate. I worked there once, for a few months, is all.

A regional state becoming "a open terror supporting state that's hostile to Australia" isn't a carrier scenario, unless maybe it's Indonesia, & it becomes open warfare. I don't really see Australia trying to conquer Indonesia, & any other open warfare scenario (except maybe one - Indonesia re-taking Timor Leste) means Australia can invoke other countries treaty obligations.

Defending Australia against invasion doesn't mean carriers. New Caledonia is French, & I think the MN would insist on doing that one themselves, & would get quite huffy at Australia trying to do it for them. New Guinea - well, if it fell all in one go, along with the Solomons & New Hebrides, maybe carriers would be needed to help the locals get their country back. But realistically, could that happen? It's not exactly on the same scale as the Falklands. And in any case, anyone who could grab the lot in one bite could swat any carrier force Australia could afford. Without the lot falling in one go, Australian forces could use local air bases.

I can't see Australian carriers as serving any purpose in a war with China, which in any case, wouldn't be an all-Australian affair. In all the island scenarios, there's no air opposition. The treaty obligations come with allies, which have land bases.

You see? In principle, I can see how carriers can be useful. But in detail, I can't see a scenario where Australia would have a need for them, since any conflict I can imagine in which Australia might get involved either wouldn't need them, or Australia would be involved as an auxiliary of the USA.

 

[contedicavour]

Here are some scenarios where Australia would definitively need 2 dozen F35Bs aboard its 2 future LHDs :

> civilian strife in Timor or Irian Jaya leading to separatist movements fighting the central Indonesian government. The US would probably not care and not lead the intervention. You may face SU27 and F5 E/F and F16 equipped with ASMs ranging from Uran to Harpoons.

> 1979 Teheran - type situation with Australian embassy personnel taken hostage during some Islamist coup...

> an Australian oiler or cargo ship taken hostage by terrorists close to Iranian or other hostile territorial waters.

> piracy against ships with Australian exports (such as iron ore) or with Australian imports (oil first and foremost), again close to potentially hostile territorial waters.

> potentially the worst : an aggressive 2020 China establishing air bases in some Pacific Ocean island nation. A bit like what Grenada could have become with Cuban and Soviet planes stationed on it in the early '80s.

Add in a potentially isolationist US administration some 20 years from now, and you're not that sure that a USN carrier strike group is there to help.

cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Here are some scenarios where Australia would definitively need 2 dozen F35Bs aboard its 2 future LHDs :

> civilian strife in Timor or Irian Jaya leading to separatist movements fighting the central Indonesian government. The US would probably not care and not lead the intervention. You may face SU27 and F5 E/F and F16 equipped with ASMs ranging from Uran to Harpoons.

We've faced such a scenario already and the US didn't lead the intervention.

> 1979 Teheran - type situation with Australian embassy personnel taken hostage during some Islamist coup...

What capability exactly would a carrier provide in this situation?

> an Australian oiler or cargo ship taken hostage by terrorists close to Iranian or other hostile territorial waters.

Again as above.

> piracy against ships with Australian exports (such as iron ore) or with Australian imports (oil first and foremost), again close to potentially hostile territorial waters.

Again as above, however this seems like a role FAR more suited to the employment of surface vessels backed by some MPA aircraft and possibly a Hercules or 2 with SOCOMD's flash new "air deliverable" RHIB's and a few para qualified TAG members...

> potentially the worst : an aggressive 2020 China establishing air bases in some Pacific Ocean island nation. A bit like what Grenada could have become with Cuban and Soviet planes stationed on it in the early '80s.

Again what for? Are we going to go head 2 head with China? Why would China want to establish air bases in the South Pacific?

Add in a potentially isolationist US administration some 20 years from now, and you're not that sure that a USN carrier strike group is there to help.

cheers

The day that the US won't support Australia if China wants to attack us, is so far over the horizon that no amount of altitude is going to help...

Why on earth would china want to attack us? They can get everything they want out of us far more cheaply by simply offering to BUY it. Hence the problems I have with Air Power Australia's ridiculous "strategic assessments"...

As if China would fire a cruise missile at the Northwest shelf. Would they want to interupt their OWN supplies???

 

[contedicavour]

No problem AD, I was just trying to identify worst possible scenarios

Regarding the scenarios where you ask what use the carrier would have : once the ship taken hostage or the act of piracy is in enemy territorial waters, you really need air cover for whatever operation you put in place to rescue the ships. Hence the need for a few F35Bs to provide temporary air superiority. Same for relieving a besieged embassy if you can't rely on air bases close enough. IIRC in 1979 the helos that tried to reach Teheran took off from carriers or LHDs.

Regarding potential Chinese air bases in the South Pacific, I was just applying what Japan did in the '30s to an imaginary 2020 scenario. When Japan felt besieged and risked being starved of important natural resources, it reacted by occupying militarily the countries with the natural resources it feared losing access to (Malaysia, Indonesia ...)

cheers

 

[Tasman]

Since you need approx 8 years to build a carrier and make it operative (and that is for experienced Western shipyards), you'd better be good at forecasting future threats.

Oh btw I'm not suggesting Australia builds 2 Queen Elisabeth huge carriers, just supporting presence of F35Bs aboard big LHDs.

cheers

As I have argued before I agree strongly with acquiring a small number of F35Bs for the LHDs. I would argue that whilst it would perhaps be possible to build a carrier and get it to sea with some sort of airgroup in 8 years it would be much longer before it could be truly operational. When Oz previously established its force of light fleet carriers it had a large number of trained ex WW2 pilots available to recruit, and more importantly it was heavily dependent on loan personnel from the RN. Neither of these resources is available today. IMO it would take more than ten years for a properly worked up carrier airgroup to be operational.

However, a small number of F35Bs included in the current plan would provide a useful core force to develop skills and doctrine for operations from the LHDs (as well, of course of other scenarios where VSTOL might be useful such as forward deployed air cover where there is no suitable air field for conventional aircraft). If this capability is developed the force could be expanded comparatively quickly in the future if circumstances require. It would also place Australia in a far better position if it wanted to develop a carrier force proper at that time.

Cheers

 

[Lawman]

I would certainly want to see the LHDs capable of taking F-35Bs, but if the Navantia design is selected, that is already taken care of. On an ad hoc basis, they should be capable of carrying up to 16 F-35Bs, plus an ASW helo detachment. The theory of course being that you could embark fighters to open the door, then disembark them in favour of transport and attack helos once the door is open. Of course, if needed, you may be able to use a sealift vessel (either owned or taken up from trade) to act as spare deck capacity, allowing both fixed and rotary winged assets.

A good target (in my opinion) would be to have two F-35A sqns, one F-35B sqn, and a pair of Rhino sqns (yes, unaffordable, but good fun!). Also, boost the AWD buy to four ships, allowing a more balanced fleet!

 

[Tasman]

I would certainly want to see the LHDs capable of taking F-35Bs, but if the Navantia design is selected, that is already taken care of. On an ad hoc basis, they should be capable of carrying up to 16 F-35Bs, plus an ASW helo detachment. The theory of course being that you could embark fighters to open the door, then disembark them in favour of transport and attack helos once the door is open. Of course, if needed, you may be able to use a sealift vessel (either owned or taken up from trade) to act as spare deck capacity, allowing both fixed and rotary winged assets.

A good target (in my opinion) would be to have two F-35A sqns, one F-35B sqn, and a pair of Rhino sqns (yes, unaffordable, but good fun!). Also, boost the AWD buy to four ships, allowing a more balanced fleet!

I would be comfortable with that mix and I think around 40 F35As, 20 F35Bs and 48 FA18Fs to equip these squadrons may be affordable. I would also like to see at least one more LHD in a follow on buy, to ensure that at least two are available at any one time. Along with the projected sea lift ship this would provide ample amphibious capacity with one LHD operating F35Bs and Seahawks in the way you suggest.

Cheers

 

[Rich]

Why on earth would china want to attack us? They can get everything they want out of us far more cheaply by simply offering to BUY it. Hence the problems I have with Air Power Australia's ridiculous "strategic assessments"...

bauxite, black coal, copper, gold, iron ore, ilmenite, lead, manganese, rare earth elements, tantalum, tin, uranium and zinc. EDR of cobalt, diamonds (both gem and industrial), lithium, phosphate, rutile, silver, tungsten and zircon, and others, including both off shore and on shore oil reserves. China is a resource hungry Dragon and its only going to get hungrier in the future.

Time itself is a great wheel. The only real predict er we have for future events is the study of history and history provides many worrisome events that should help drive military budgets. First off there has been other empires who looked on Australia's land mass and resources with envy. Most notably Japan in WW-ll. There were elements in their high command who wanted to invade Australia for strategic position alone, their resource riches being an extra sweetener. Instead the Japanese stupidly sent much of their army out to garrison and starve on meaningless South pacific Islands that MacArthur was all to happy to by-pass in his drive thru the South Pacific.

If history again proves correct then after a period of War America will probably become semi-Isolationist and the country will become more anti-Military and pacifist. Tho I admit its difficult to envision America turning its back on Australia in the case they are attacked . As long as there is a treaty commitment I'd probably use the word "impossible" instead.

 

[swerve]

No problem AD, I was just trying to identify worst possible scenarios

Regarding the scenarios where you ask what use the carrier would have : once the ship taken hostage or the act of piracy is in enemy territorial waters, you really need air cover for whatever operation you put in place to rescue the ships. Hence the need for a few F35Bs to provide temporary air superiority. Same for relieving a besieged embassy if you can't rely on air bases close enough. IIRC in 1979 the helos that tried to reach Teheran took off from carriers or LHDs....

But this is a general argument for anybody having aircraft carriers. It's an argument for landlocked countries to have them!

What I'd like to see is arguments for Australia needing carriers, taking into account Australias specific circumstances. What reasons are there for Australia to have carriers which don't also apply to Bulgaria, or any other country currently lacking them?

 

[Aussie Digger]

No problem AD, I was just trying to identify worst possible scenarios

Regarding the scenarios where you ask what use the carrier would have : once the ship taken hostage or the act of piracy is in enemy territorial waters, you really need air cover for whatever operation you put in place to rescue the ships. Hence the need for a few F35Bs to provide temporary air superiority. Same for relieving a besieged embassy if you can't rely on air bases close enough. IIRC in 1979 the helos that tried to reach Teheran took off from carriers or LHDs. cheers

The American's did it this way and look how good it worked out? I prefer the Israeli and German methods of long distance hostage rescue. Seem to work much better and no Carrier was required...

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

But just because we have treaty commitments with the U.S. doesnt mean we can rely on them to defend us. I'm not questioning the US's resolve. I have no doubt they would do everything they could to defend us in such a situation. but we relied on the UK in the 30's and early 40's and look what happened. All they could do was send a division and 2 battleships without aircover. Not that they didnt want to help, just that they were in the fight for their lives with the germans. No betrayal, (apart from attempting to keep our troops in the mediteranian or burma against the coutries will when we were under threat of invasion, that you could call betrayal). What if most of the U.S. forces are tied down in Korea or other parts of Asia in such a war, we need to be able to defend ourselvs. I know this is unlikely and we shouldnt be building a carrier because of this imaginary "threat" but we shouldn't let our treaties define our defence policy. It is impossible to think that Australia would face China on our own, but if we did face China it would be as part of a major war throughout the region and who knows what would happen, and we would need to prepare for the eventality that we could face substantial Chinise forces largely on our own in such a senario, however unlikely it is at the moment. How unlikely did WW2 seem in 1920?

 

[Manfred]

That was on of the best posts I have ever seen here, Ozzy, and an very good point. the best way to stop an invasion from happening is to be prepared to stop it... but god luck getting your Government to believe that. :unknown

 

[Todjaeger]

But just because we have treaty commitments with the U.S. doesnt mean we can rely on them to defend us. I'm not questioning the US's resolve. I have no doubt they would do everything they could to defend us in such a situation. but we relied on the UK in the 30's and early 40's and look what happened. All they could do was send a division and 2 battleships without aircover. Not that they didnt want to help, just that they were in the fight for their lives with the germans. No betrayal, (apart from attempting to keep our troops in the mediteranian or burma against the coutries will when we were under threat of invasion, that you could call betrayal). What if most of the U.S. forces are tied down in Korea or other parts of Asia in such a war, we need to be able to defend ourselvs. I know this is unlikely and we shouldnt be building a carrier because of this imaginary "threat" but we shouldn't let our treaties define our defence policy. It is impossible to think that Australia would face China on our own, but if we did face China it would be as part of a major war throughout the region and who knows what would happen, and we would need to prepare for the eventality that we could face substantial Chinise forces largely on our own in such a senario, however unlikely it is at the moment. How unlikely did WW2 seem in 1920?

If one reads the 2000 White Paper, it makes a point that the Defence of Australia first and foremost is the responsibility of Australia. It goes on further that for the foreseeable future, the US will have a dominant position in the world, and that a treaty exists between the US & Australia, but Australia must not rely on the US to defend it. That there are situations where the US might be unable or unwilling to come to Australia's aid, and that the ADF should plan accordingly.

One of my concerns regarding ADF planning & strategy is that it might be too conventional, too "inside the box" thinking. Unfortunately the US has demonstrated, repeatedly, thinking that is in my view either too conventional or too short-term.

The ADF, adding components that allow it to interoperate with coalitions can help stabilize situations before the get out of hand or spread, potentially neutralizing threats before they can threaten Australia directly. Also, if the same equipment can have roles in Defence of Australia situations, then it can be a "win-win" addition.

To that end, I am in favor of the RAN acquiring more dual or multi-role vessels. An LHD that can carry troops and supplies (as normal) but also be re-tasked as a CVL or CVH would give a greater range of responses. Similarly, planning for replenishment vessels like the proposed Canadian JSS would be valuable. Of course though, consideration needs to be given to the costs associated with allowing multi-role functionality as well as ensuring that the additional role(s) don't negatively impact whatever the primary role is.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

One of my concerns regarding ADF planning & strategy is that it might be too conventional, too "inside the box" thinking. Unfortunately the US has demonstrated, repeatedly, thinking that is in my view either too conventional or too short-term. -Cheers

I have heard this a few times recently and I now would like to address it as best I may.

My experience with Army (and the wider ADF) is that it considers itself a warfighting force. Any other type of operation is secondary to it's primary role of fighting wars.

The current program to re-equip ADF is I think doing a fantastic job of equipping ADF with the tools necessary to carry out it's primary job. We bicker and argue over certain capabilities, and this has happened (probably) since the ADF was created, but I defy anyone to point to an OPERATIONAL flaw that has severely affected the ADF's operational performance?

Can anyone name an ADF operation that hasn't been achieved successfully? I can't. The closest I can come to is Rwanda and even then if you look at what ADF was directed to achieve, it did achieve it's MISSON, even if the mission didn't mean much in the overall scheme of things.

To this end if you look at the capabilities that ADF has acquired recently, or will acquire over the next few years, it is simply staggering and an almost unheard of capability enhancement.

Army: Abrams, M113AS3/4, Bushmaster, ASLAV enhancements, Tiger, MRH-90, Javelin, Project OVerlander, RBS-70 enhancement, inidividual soldier enhancements, Land 17, Land 40, Combat engineering enhancements, watercraft enhancements, Chinook enhancements, additional battalions.

RAAF: Hornet upgrade, JASSM/JDAM, Wedgetail, KC-30B, C-17, C-130's, Vigilare, JORN, Caribou replacement, Hawk Mk 127, Super Hornets (if they eventuate).

RAN: Armidale Class PB's, Collins upgrade, FFG-UP, SM-2, Harpoon Block II, ESSM, ANZAC ASMD, Seahawk upgrade, AWD's, LHD's and this only scratches the surface.

I havent even touched on the BIGGEST ADF project, nor the follow on projects to come (Land 400, Frigate replacment project, later phases of AIR-9000 etc).

A good look at this list shows outstanding capabilities for virtually every spectrum of warfare. To me there are few capabilities that are NOT being addressed in some form or other. It may not be to everyone's personal liking, but it's hard to argue against the breadth of "change" currently being undertaken.

This might be "thinking inside the box" but there are few military capabilities that are not extent or will be soon in ADF's Orbat...

 

[Sea Toby]

Even if there were an invasion of Australia's northwest coast, it will be difficult for an enemy to supply the invasion force. Australia itself will find it difficult to maintain and supply a significant force much less anyone else.

The Australian air force will do its best to sink any invasion force, and the navy will do its best to do the same. The navy's submarine force will attempt to cut the supply line, and sink as many vessels as possible.

About the only nation that can possibly pull off an invasion is the United States, but its not likely the US will ever invade a friendly Australia.

Since Australia built up its empty airfields, an aircraft carrier is no longer necessary. There is no threat, and until there is a significant threat, Australia does not need an aircraft carrier.

 

[phreeky]

Since Australia built up its empty airfields, an aircraft carrier is no longer necessary. There is no threat, and until there is a significant threat, Australia does not need an aircraft carrier.

This has been my thinking - so long as there are airfields to use at various points throughout the country (generally across the northern coastline), an aircraft carrier isn't justified to defend against an invasion. Jets can fly much faster from the south to a northern airfield than any aircraft carrier can make it up there, so long as the ADF has the capability of suitably equiping and manning these airfields at times in need and at short notice.

For the $$$ that would be involved, surely we could find more needy areas?

 

[Todjaeger]

Even if there were an invasion of Australia's northwest coast, it will be difficult for an enemy to supply the invasion force. Australia itself will find it difficult to maintain and supply a significant force much less anyone else.

The Australian air force will do its best to sink any invasion force, and the navy will do its best to do the same. The navy's submarine force will attempt to cut the supply line, and sink as many vessels as possible.

About the only nation that can possibly pull off an invasion is the United States, but its not likely the US will ever invade a friendly Australia.

Since Australia built up its empty airfields, an aircraft carrier is no longer necessary. There is no threat, and until there is a significant threat, Australia does not need an aircraft carrier.

I agree, that with bare basing, an aircraft carrier isn't really needed for a Defence of Australia situation. Particularly in light of the amount of space available for a defence in depth, and the few nations capable of landing an invasion force given the distance.

However a carrier, or carrier-like vessel (again, back to the LHD) could be used for power projection or to protect Australian strategic interests that aren't under RAAF aircover. Again, not advocating the RAN add a carrier to the Fleet, but to have the option available with the upcoming LHDs.

-Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Agreed, a carrier is a force projection tool and land baces are much more usefull and cost effective for several reasons. Sea Toby i was making a wider point about defence policy in response to some earlier posts, personally i think a dedicated light carrier would not be a good choice for the RANfor the forseable future.