Could Australia build a cheap carrier?

Status
Not open for further replies.

cherry

Banned Member
After much debate in other forums as to what the formation of RAAF long range strike should be, and what the future of the RAN should be, I thought it might be interesting to throw another option up in the air and raise the question as to whether the RAN should, would or could aquire an aircraft carrier. With two new LHDs to enter service in six or seven years time, and the probable purchase of the JSF with the possibility of some of these airframes being of the F-35B versions, an opportunity exists to capitalise on these aquisitions. Some suggestions have been made that if the F-35B version is purchased, the ability to embark a small number of these (6-10) on the new LHDs would offer RAN an amazing capability to project air power and force over larger distances. But this does raise the problem of both RAAF and Army fighting over limited space on these ships. One possibility or scenario would be to build a carrier that is entirely dedicated to an aircraft carrier capability, housing an entire squadron of F-35B, AWAC helos and additional supporting helos. With a design on two new LHDs to be selected in the not too distant future, would it be feasible to build a third of these platforms without the need to transport troops and their equipment, with a smaller well-dock to deliver UUV, USV manned SV etc, but fitted out entirely for JSF operations? At a cost of approx. $1B each for the LHDs, would it be incorrect to assume that it should cost around the same amount for a carrier? We are about to spend $2B on new C-17 aircraft, this would have bought us two carriers.
 

nz enthusiast

New Member
I don't think Australia as the man power to support such a ship. I decent carrier (30 or so aircraft) needs around 1000 people, 1000 people Australia doesn't have. A nice idea, which will fall flat on its face.
 

pepsi

New Member
From what i have read, the F35B's that may be operated on the LHD's would be operated by the RAN, so the RAAF and Army wouldn't really be fighting over limited space as you said

Its quite possible that after operating the LHD's for awhile they go for a dedicated carrier, i often wonder if we had replaced the carriers that were decommissioned in the 80s, where our Navy would be now in terms of carriers and everything

I think one of the main issues for it are political issues, the projection of power that comes with carriers is, from what i have read, likely to annoy some countries that we want to keep happy for economic and whatever other reasons, but recent decisions such as the AWD's/LHD's and everything, make me wonder if thats as much of an issue as it used to be for Australia, maybe we have more economic weight than we used to (with China relying so much on our raw materials) so we can make the decisions that may not have been approved 10 or 15 years ago

Thats all just speculation though heh

With the amount of coastline we have, the amount of ocean in our region, and lack of focus on defence by NZ in recent years, i've often wondered why we don't have a larger navy and why it took us this long to decide to get an LHD capability, its not like we can't justify it.. Imagine how useful those 2 LHD's could have been in things helping out with the Tsunami, operating choppers off in the Solomon islands, etc..

And as far as a dedicated carrier goes, it would probably be justified, i just wonder how much use it would get
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
nz_e is correct. at the coal face the major hindrance is manning. we are close to 40% understaffed for some pilot roles. the ideal manning requirement for collins looked at blue gold crews (same as nukes) but was never viable - we just have enough as it is.

floating a flattie requires a strategic imperative, a regional necessity, a threat to warrant it (extended threat to SLOCs outside of land based air), crewing and lots and lots of money.

carriers require ASW, AAW/AWS, replenishers, subs riding shotgun in hot areas. that pulls those assets from continental main game work.

to have one carrier at each flleet base means a 3rd one in refurb cycle.

so your $3bn carrier in real terms if employed across the ORBAT will transalet into an initial $12bn chain of expenses.

running exp will probably cost a few hundred million per year - each

'aint going to happen
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
gf0012-aust said:
nz_e is correct. at the coal face the major hindrance is manning. we are close to 40% understaffed for some pilot roles. the ideal manning requirement for collins looked at blue gold crews (same as nukes) but was never viable - we just have enough as it is.

floating a flattie requires a strategic imperative, a regional necessity, a threat to warrant it (extended threat to SLOCs outside of land based air), crewing and lots and lots of money.

carriers require ASW, AAW/AWS, replenishers, subs riding shotgun in hot areas. that pulls those assets from continental main game work.

to have one carrier at each flleet base means a 3rd one in refurb cycle.

so your $3bn carrier in real terms if employed across the ORBAT will transalet into an initial $12bn chain of expenses.

running exp will probably cost a few hundred million per year - each

'aint going to happen
I agree thata dedicated carrier is probably out of Australia's reach, both budget wise AND manning wise at present. Additionally I can see no great strategic need for one.

An airgroup to equip the LHD's however, should not prove too expensive OR difficult to man and would immeasurably add to RAN's ability to defend itself at sea. Power projection would be a limited political issue, with the few aircraft that the LPH's could carry, (probaly 6-10 at most as previously mentioned) realistically unable to project and sustain "real" combat power.

Such an airgroup would probably be mainly used to "beef" up the air defence capability of a naval taskforce, with limited ability to conduct strike missions in higher intensity scenario's, though possessing greater strike capability in less intense warfare scenario's.

The RAAF is most likely to operate any such aircraft off the RAN flat-tops and given that RAAF pilot numbers are by far the best out of any of the 3 service's pilot numbers, the issue of manning such a squadron, should be limited.

Such a RAAF group would probably be no more than squadron strength at best, with a detachment deployed on the ships when required. The majority of the squadron would remain "home-based" the majority of the time, thus limiting personnel dissatisfaction with extended tours at sea (as is rumoured with the RAF/RN "Joint Force" Harrier).

If such an option is pursued though, it will be a secondary consideration over the ship's primary amphib transport roles. Any issues of flight deck space etc, will be sorted well before any deployments are conducted, with the ADF no doubt requiring many an exercise on these matters, well before they are "thrown into the deep-end" of deploying operationally. Even if the F-35B is not acquired, they will represent a massive increase in operational capability over our existing amphib capabilities...
 

Cootamundra

New Member
Aussie Digger said:
The RAAF is most likely to operate any such aircraft off the RAN flat-tops and given that RAAF pilot numbers are by far the best out of any of the 3 service's pilot numbers, the issue of manning such a squadron, should be limited.
AD I reckon you're spot on with the RAAF call, really the RAN fast jet capability was given up awhile ago and I can't see them getting it back. Also with recent discussion around the possibility of a 'joint' helicopter command similar to the UK approach I think the chance of a RAN F-35B squadron seems HIGHLY unlikely. Personally I see no issues with the RAAF flying off the RAN assets (if they had the kit), it would mean that all of skills in maint/training etc could evolve within the RAAF and then depending on what was needed the RAAF could either do land based stuff or operate off the new SPS.

Cheers, Coota
 

abramsteve

New Member
Personaly I find the idea of a dedicated aircraft carrier for the RAN a really great idea, after all, if Brazil thinks they have the need for one why the heck dont we!!!

However I understand the issues of manpower and cost that have been mentioned. I wonder if it would be more realistic to hope for a heavylift chopper for the Navy, as a replacement for the Sea Kings, or just a pure heavy transport/assault chopper?
 

Sea Toby

New Member
I am of the opinion that without a proper mix of aircraft, a carrier isn't an asset but a millstone. Since Australia can't afford a true carrier with a proper mix of aircraft, much less operate it, a carrier isn't in the cards. Nor could Australia man it.

However,it is nice to be able to move a score of helicopters and a battalion of troops about when needed. Just the presence of the helicopters is a great force multiplier.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Sea Toby said:
I am of the opinion that without a proper mix of aircraft, a carrier isn't an asset but a millstone. Since Australia can't afford a true carrier with a proper mix of aircraft, much less operate it, a carrier isn't in the cards. Nor could Australia man it.

However,it is nice to be able to move a score of helicopters and a battalion of troops about when needed. Just the presence of the helicopters is a great force multiplier.
"Small Amphib based flat tops" with small numbers of STOVL aircraft have served the Brits, Spaniards, Italians, Thai's, Indian's and the USMC well enough over the years, a couple would serve the ADF brilliantly too. All of these flat tops with the exception of the British (with their Sea King AEW assets) only operate fixed wing STOVL aircraft and helo's on their vessels. That's all we operate too. The only difference would be the increased capability we'd have because of the capability difference between the F-35B and the Harrier series.

I agree completely that (without National Service) or a direct threat to Australia, we could not operate a proper carrier. However the STOVL option is VERY much on the cards. The Spanish NAvantia design is designed from scratch with a ski-jump and elvators designed to carry fixed wing STOVL aircraft AND helo's. To remove these options, would cost us considerably as elements of the ship would have to be re-designed.

AIR-6000 is funded to acquire up to 100 aircraft, ie: 4x operational combat aircraft squadrons. Given we will for several years prior, operate only 3x frontline squadrons, 4 squadrons of any superior aircraft will be a significant boost. If 3x F-35A squadrons and 1x F-35B squadron were chosen, it'd provide a massive boost in capability over our 3x F/A-18 fleet, and cost only a little more (in terms of overall budget) than a 4x Sqn F-35A fleet.

It'd also be far more flexible given the STOVL aircraft's attributes, able to operate off un-prepared "rough" strips in Northern Australia as easily as it could operate off our LPD's.

An ability to embark 8-12 F-35B's per LPD's (which can reputedly carry 29 aircraft in total EACH, at maximum capacity) would arguably provide a greater combat enhancement to than RAN than even the AWD's, IMHO.

It'd give us the greatest ability to protect a naval taskforce from air attack we've ever had AND give us long range strike options, we haven't had since we paid off HMAS Melbourne and sold our "scooters" to NZ. We would also still have the ability to carry up to 17 helo's per LHD...
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Once you place air force fighters or naval fighters upon these LHD's they cease to be amphibious ships and become light aircraft carriers, as you lose too many lane meters of cargo space to fighter maintenance and operational elements.

The American Marines Harriers provide excellent air support, but when it comes to air superiority, the Marines choose the Hornet flying off the large aircraft carriers. In the past even the Americans have left their Harriers behind to enhance the Marines landing force capabilites.

Obviously the Australians wish to build a LHD capable of carrying and landing up to 1,000 army personnel with helicopters. If the Australians were looking for a CVA sea control style vessel, they won't need as large a ship with a well dock. Although very capable, using the LHD in such a role as you have described will reduce the army trooplift capacity quite a bit.
 

KAPITAIN

New Member
Australia has had aircraft carriers but they cant man them any more, its a shame realy but the naval assests funding and man power just are not there, in the UK we are building the new Type 45 and new 65,000 tonne carriers, and we will struggle to man them.

Something the size of HMS Ark Royal (current one) still takes almost if not more than 1,000 persones to man.

Its a nice idea but finacialy the RAN doesnt need them and realy the RAN doesnt get to involved with major wars in any big way (i.e they dont send half the millatery to fight in one area).
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Sea Toby said:
Once you place air force fighters or naval fighters upon these LHD's they cease to be amphibious ships and become light aircraft carriers, as you lose too many lane meters of cargo space to fighter maintenance and operational elements.

The American Marines Harriers provide excellent air support, but when it comes to air superiority, the Marines choose the Hornet flying off the large aircraft carriers. In the past even the Americans have left their Harriers behind to enhance the Marines landing force capabilites.

Obviously the Australians wish to build a LHD capable of carrying and landing up to 1,000 army personnel with helicopters. If the Australians were looking for a CVA sea control style vessel, they won't need as large a ship with a well dock. Although very capable, using the LHD in such a role as you have described will reduce the army trooplift capacity quite a bit.
All true, but the USMC still has the capability available to it if necessary. The RAN currenrtly doesn't. One of the benefits of the F-35B compared to Harrier, is the significantly greater air superiority capability. A small fleet of F-35B's will still provide a reasonable air defence capability. A similar force of harriers (even Sea Harriers) would not provide the same degree of capability.

Obviously the RAN would prefer it's assets protected by fixed wing aircraft from a supercarrier, or land based, however a necessary element of Australia's defence posture is the ability to conduct operations independant of anyone else's assistance, ie: self-reliance.

Obviously there are limits to this, but Australia has conducted operations beyond the reach of land based Australian airpower and without US Supercarrier "protection" in recent times. Granted these have been lower-level ops, without the need for integral air defence, but it shouldn't be taken for granted that this situation will always be the case.

The acquisition of these ships represents an opportunity to RAN to gain a genuine "at sea" air defence capability, besides that conferred by surface vessels. True the adoption of a light carrier role, may reduce the capability to conduct amphibious operations somewhat, however it will still be greater than at present AND provide the "light carrier" capability. In addition, I don't advocate using these vessels for this task on a permanent basis, but rather as required, dependant on the tactical situation. Deploying troops in the face of hostile fires from enemy aircraft is going to be beyond the capability of even the LHD's. AWD's will only carry so many SAM's afterall.

Also, as I mentioned in my previous post, it's been reported that the Navantia LHD can carry up to 29 aircraft. No details have emerged (that I'm aware of) as to whether it impinges on vehicle/cargo carrying capability. However it will make no difference to troop transport capability. The crew compartment and troop transport arrangements are completely separate from the vehicle/aircraft capability.

Also it seems ludicrous to assume that aircraft/helo's will be stored (when below decks) in normal vehicle lanes, as opposed to normal ship hangars. Given the size of the ship, it would not surprise me if the carrying capacity for aircraft was completely separate from the vehicle/troop transport capability... Meaning that any fixed wing aircraft carried would only be detrimental to the helo lift capacity. Up to 17 helo's (depending on the numbers of F-35's carried) is still a MASSIVE increase in capability over the 4 that our current LPA's carry.
 

pepsi

New Member
Aussie Digger said:
No details have emerged (that I'm aware of) as to whether it impinges on vehicle/cargo carrying capability. However it will make no difference to troop transport capability. The crew compartment and troop transport arrangements are completely separate from the vehicle/aircraft capability. .
I'm not sure if this sheds light on it :

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=45859&postcount=23

the links there : http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/images/cubiertavuelo.jpg
http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/images/hangarvuelo.jpg
http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/images/vehangarcargaligera.jpg
http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/images/vehangarcargapesada.jpg

I might be reading it wrong, but to me it looks like there is a hangar for each thing or something, not sure though
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Aussie Digger said:
All true, but the USMC still has the capability available to it if necessary. The RAN currenrtly doesn't. One of the benefits of the F-35B compared to Harrier, is the significantly greater air superiority capability. A small fleet of F-35B's will still provide a reasonable air defence capability. A similar force of harriers (even Sea Harriers) would not provide the same degree of capability.

Obviously the RAN would prefer it's assets protected by fixed wing aircraft from a supercarrier, or land based, however a necessary element of Australia's defence posture is the ability to conduct operations independant of anyone else's assistance, ie: self-reliance.

Obviously there are limits to this, but Australia has conducted operations beyond the reach of land based Australian airpower and without US Supercarrier "protection" in recent times. Granted these have been lower-level ops, without the need for integral air defence, but it shouldn't be taken for granted that this situation will always be the case.

The acquisition of these ships represents an opportunity to RAN to gain a genuine "at sea" air defence capability, besides that conferred by surface vessels. True the adoption of a light carrier role, may reduce the capability to conduct amphibious operations somewhat, however it will still be greater than at present AND provide the "light carrier" capability. In addition, I don't advocate using these vessels for this task on a permanent basis, but rather as required, dependant on the tactical situation. Deploying troops in the face of hostile fires from enemy aircraft is going to be beyond the capability of even the LHD's. AWD's will only carry so many SAM's afterall.

Also, as I mentioned in my previous post, it's been reported that the Navantia LHD can carry up to 29 aircraft. No details have emerged (that I'm aware of) as to whether it impinges on vehicle/cargo carrying capability. However it will make no difference to troop transport capability. The crew compartment and troop transport arrangements are completely separate from the vehicle/aircraft capability.

Also it seems ludicrous to assume that aircraft/helo's will be stored (when below decks) in normal vehicle lanes, as opposed to normal ship hangars. Given the size of the ship, it would not surprise me if the carrying capacity for aircraft was completely separate from the vehicle/troop transport capability... Meaning that any fixed wing aircraft carried would only be detrimental to the helo lift capacity. Up to 17 helo's (depending on the numbers of F-35's carried) is still a MASSIVE increase in capability over the 4 that our current LPA's carry.
The Spanish ship has two 'main' decks. For amphibious operations the top deck is split in two, half carries 12 choppers, the other half carries vehicles. The bottom main deck is also split about 40/60 with the 40% being the well dock and 60% further vehicle stowage. The drawing pepsi has above show the top deck with 10 harriers (in addition to the 12 choppers), which I assume can also be replaced by F-35bs. However in that config extra ordinance and avgas for the F35s would have to be carried as well as pilots, ground crew, mission planners etc.. which would have to detract significantly from any amphibious equipment that the ship can carry.

The Spanish website (which is translated into English) gives a clearer indication of configurations.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.armada.mde.es%2Fesp%2FElFuturo%2FBuqueProyeccionEstrategica%2FAntecedentes.asp&langpair=es%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

But it does give two clear tonnage figures, one as a carrier config and one as a amphib.

So well it could carry a air strike force as well as an amphib force I think it would have to really depend on the mission and what planners were willing to sacrifice in amphib terms to accommodate some air strike.

Lets also not forget that the Spanish ship is aroind 27,000t and the USMCs Wasp is 40,000t+.
 
Last edited:

Sea Toby

New Member
Italy is also building a nice LHD too, of some 26,500 tons similar to the Spanish and the French with a well dock.

While the ship maybe able to do both air strike and amphibious operations, it won't do both well at the same time.
 

perfectgeneral

New Member
A Cheap Carrier

A CVF costs £1.75-2billion to build. Buying the plans might make it nearer the latter. Building it in a South Korean yard would make it cheaper though. For a 65,000-70,000 tonne aircraft carrier that is a bargain price. It would give the F-35 range enough to be useful to Australia.:uk
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Sea Toby said:
Italy is also building a nice LHD too, of some 26,500 tons similar to the Spanish and the French with a well dock.

While the ship maybe able to do both air strike and amphibious operations, it won't do both well at the same time.
No arguement there, having the capability in the LHD to do either (or a compromise combination) gives you the option, and flexibility, to have some strike capability in a given set of circumstaces. These vessels could never match a fully blown CV but the ability to carry up to 12 VSTOL aircraft would provide a handy capability, particalry where both vessels are availabe for operations.

Having helo mounted AEW would be nice as well but that being said even the F-35B for Australia appears to be a bit of a pipe dream at the moment.

As an associated issue I wonder what would happen in respect of Harrier production if the F-35B gets axed (as this seems unlikely but possible if that makse sense) noting the investment by a number of medium size naval forces in VSTOL capable vessels. Any thoughts?
 

Gaenth

New Member
As an associated issue I wonder what would happen in respect of Harrier production if the F-35B gets axed (as this seems unlikely but possible if that makse sense) noting the investment by a number of medium size naval forces in VSTOL capable vessels. Any thoughts?
The main problem in my opinion would be selling Harriers to nations that never got them in the first place, how does killing JSF make Harriers any better? Specially when governments haven't been able to commit investment on aircraft carriers or a forward deployed air-support force. Harrier capability can still be developed to a decent level at a more or less reasonable cost but it'd fall short from JSF's in any case. Countries like Spain, Italy or India would be more than happy with further development of Harrier, but the two main users (and manufacturers) UK and the US already want a more capable jump jet, so they're not taking that path.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Gaenth said:
The main problem in my opinion would be selling Harriers to nations that never got them in the first place, how does killing JSF make Harriers any better? Specially when governments haven't been able to commit investment on aircraft carriers or a forward deployed air-support force. Harrier capability can still be developed to a decent level at a more or less reasonable cost but it'd fall short from JSF's in any case. Countries like Spain, Italy or India would be more than happy with further development of Harrier, but the two main users (and manufacturers) UK and the US already want a more capable jump jet, so they're not taking that path.
It seems i may not have made myself very clear. I am not suggesting the F-35B should be axed or is any way inferior to an upgraded Harrier. I hope the F-35B does go into prduction but think that the USMC and RN/RAF requirement is central to that happening.

What I was wondering is what would happen if the F-35B is axed (as has been suggested by some commntators) noting the number of VSTOL capable ships in service, being built or planned rely on VSTOL aircrft to give them their strike capabiliy, not least the USMC LHA's. it seems to me the only option would be the Harrier as nothing else exists. If the RN/RAF pull out of the JSF it may happen that the US may consider this option to cut project costs.

Just hypothisising
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top