Does Australia need an aircraft carrier?
- Thread starter Big-E
- Start date
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Not at the expense of any other current or planned capability, but an added VSTOL capability for our planned LPD purchase would be very handy. Of course the money's not there for it (at present) and our pilot/support staff numbers is atrocious at present as well. It's almost getting to the point where lack of personnel, not platforms, is starting to hamper our capability.
IF we can sort out or personnel issues AND our funding issues, maybe then we could get such a capability. Until then, there's too many other things to worry about...
BTW, how many carriers are to be operated in the South Pacific???
IF we can sort out or personnel issues AND our funding issues, maybe then we could get such a capability. Until then, there's too many other things to worry about...
BTW, how many carriers are to be operated in the South Pacific???
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #5
Subs are great, but if you don't control the airspace over them they become a liability. AU is going to be in the middle of two up and coming 2nd tier naval powers (PLA and RIN). I think it needs to be prepared for the possibility of conflict in the next 15yrs.Supe said:
@Big-E
Australian Govt doesn't have doctrine to support Carriers. Offensive strike capability can be secured by Subs. Thailand - AFAIK, its pocket carrier is hardly used and I've read it derogatorily referred to as a royal yacht. Indian Govt believes a requirement for Carriers exist - I can't imagine they'd hang on to them or build new ones if they didn't.
Aside from absence of doctrine advocating Carriers, manning and funding (plus future demographics) means that it would be a pipedream anyway. CBG's and supporting elements with all the expenses economic and political are the province of nations like U.S - and China and India. I don't see the utility of only one CBG either.
Australian Govt doesn't have doctrine to support Carriers. Offensive strike capability can be secured by Subs. Thailand - AFAIK, its pocket carrier is hardly used and I've read it derogatorily referred to as a royal yacht. Indian Govt believes a requirement for Carriers exist - I can't imagine they'd hang on to them or build new ones if they didn't.
Aside from absence of doctrine advocating Carriers, manning and funding (plus future demographics) means that it would be a pipedream anyway. CBG's and supporting elements with all the expenses economic and political are the province of nations like U.S - and China and India. I don't see the utility of only one CBG either.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7
AU has operated carriers before and taking from US doctrine shouldn't be too difficult. The main thing a CBG needs is AEGIS and Australia will have that in the SEA 4000 Air Warfare Destroyers. These destroyers will be a perfect defense of an Aussie CBG. I think one CBG would be great for any emergency that might arise, I'm not advocating that Australia become a major naval power but keep its 1 carrier in a state of constant readiness. If she doesn't cruise all the time she would be ready to go rather quickly. Since AU is building SEA 4000 anyway, it wouldn't be too hard to scrap up a CBG if they had a carrier.Supe said:
You are saying that subs are good enough for offensive strike, what would you do if an RIN CBG lead by ex-Admiral Gorshkov attacked Christmas Island with a landing force. They would have air superiority in 5 minutes. AU sends subs and are wiped out by Helix dipping-sonar and ATVs. The F/18s won't have sufficient range to interdict b/c the tankers won't be able to get close enough. The P-3 Orions would get shot down for sure without air-cover. The surface fleet of Perth DDGs and Perry frigates would be sitting ducks for an Indian air-strike. The lack of an Aussie CBG in this scenerio means they lose.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Why on EARTH would India invade Christmas Island? Do they have an overwhelming need for limited quantities of phosphate, perhaps??? Do they have an insatiable urge to control the 350 people who live there or some fanatical desire to re-open the Casino that died there due to a lack of business? Perhaps they insanely desire 50 square kilometres of pristine bushland???Big-E said:
Okay, assuming they did it anyway, (because the Indian Government was insane), here's a few things to take into consideration. There is only 1 airstrip on Christmas Island and it's not long enough to operate fighters and not designed to handle heavy cargo aircraft.
There is a massive reef surrounding Christmas Island, which would make landing any amphibious force an extremely tricky proposition, not that you need an amphibious landing force, you could simply pull up alongside the island and have you're military "swim" to shore. There is no military capability on the island whatsover. There is also NO infrastructure on Christmas Island, capable of supporting an invasion force, once they arrived there.
It is about 1500k's North West of RAAF base Learmonth, meaning it is within patrol range of F/A-18 fighters, provided adequate tanking could be provided. It is easily within AP-3C Orion patrol range, as well as RAN Frigate/Submarine range.
Any Indian taskforce headed for Christmas Island would be detected far before they reached Christmas Island. Australia possesses a highly capable "over the horizon" radar system which covers Christmas Island and roughly 1000 - 2000k's beyond. By the time India has it's carrier in-service, RAAF will possesses a fleet of highly capable AWAC's aircraft which would also detect this fleet and be used to direct our response.
RAN Submarines would probably not even bother attacking it. They would concentrate on the 3000k+ supply line India has to try and support this expedition. Sinking the majority of the Indian merchant fleet, would be a bigger blow to India than an invasion of Christmas Island would be to Australia... Australia's Collins Class submarines are widely regarded as amongst the most capable "conventional" submarines in the world. They have penetrated the USN ASW fleet on numerous occasions and "sunk" US Carriers. They are so quiet they often have to fire flares during exercises, to allow opposing forces to locate them. Penetrating this Indian fleet, is not going to be a major problem.
The Indian fleet would also be subject to JASSM attacks by our F/A-18 fleet. Good luck attempting to survive THAT, combined with Collins Class sub attacks for long. We'll have JASSM in-service by 2009, along with upgraded Collins subs (Mk 48 mod 7 ADCAP torps, Sub-Harpoon missiles and Raytheon AN/BYG-1 combat systems, same as that used on USN SeaWolf and Virginia class subs). Will India's carrier and her MiG29K's be operational by then? Maybe, maybe not.
Either way ANY maritime fleet is going to have a bast*rd of a time attempting to deal with stealthy cruise missile attacks and sub attacks. Our standoff weapons project is going to acquire between 300-400 JASSM missiles. Our missiles are going to be equipped with the newly developed data-link system, and "maritime" engagement modes. Good luck defending against these stealthy cruise missiles which will be fired from more than 300k's away, whilst attempting to deal with Collins subs and RAN surface elements AT THE SAME TIME.
Your situation, unfortunately doesn't allow for "concentration of force" an all important military strategy that is often overlook in these sorts of scenario's...
why the hell would aus need a carrier.
reasons why we dont need a carrier and shouldnt get a carrier:
1.were r u gonna find the money to buy said carrier with all the current spending on buying new toys for the adf(i.e bushmasters, tiger arh's and abrams for the army, new fighters for the airforce and the new air warfare destroyers for the navy) id be surprised if they could afford it
2.were r u gonna get the perssonel to man this carrier with the current major problems the ADF is having with trying 2 find people 2 join up
3.the main area in wich were having personnel problems is pilots for army navy and airforce so its no use havin a carrier full of planes with nobody to fly them
i rest my case
reasons why we dont need a carrier and shouldnt get a carrier:
1.were r u gonna find the money to buy said carrier with all the current spending on buying new toys for the adf(i.e bushmasters, tiger arh's and abrams for the army, new fighters for the airforce and the new air warfare destroyers for the navy) id be surprised if they could afford it
2.were r u gonna get the perssonel to man this carrier with the current major problems the ADF is having with trying 2 find people 2 join up
3.the main area in wich were having personnel problems is pilots for army navy and airforce so its no use havin a carrier full of planes with nobody to fly them
i rest my case
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Actually Air Force is doing pretty well for pilots. Far better than RAN, and better than Army. Army isn't doing too badly with pilots, but it's finding it difficult to get pilots for it's Tigers, funnily enough. RAN is finding it near impossible to get pilots.shrub said:
Your other points are very valid. Hopefully ADF finds a way to fix it's recruiting problems. It's the single biggest issue at present, with maintaining, let alone developing capability proving very difficult.
Government has been relatively good with funding in the last 5 years (compared to the last 30) and for once, funding the ADF is not the biggest problem it faces...
Christmas Is. RWY
Hi All,
Just for info, Christmas Is. RWY is only 30m shorter than Richmonds' RWY(C-130 base) & 300m shorter than Williamtown (F/A-18 base). While there a very limited facilities there, Qantas have operated B767's in there at reduced weights, for 'immigration charters'.
I completely agree with Aussie Diggers' sentiment of why, but some people will go to great lengths for a good chilli crab! :drunk1
Hi All,
Just for info, Christmas Is. RWY is only 30m shorter than Richmonds' RWY(C-130 base) & 300m shorter than Williamtown (F/A-18 base). While there a very limited facilities there, Qantas have operated B767's in there at reduced weights, for 'immigration charters'.
I completely agree with Aussie Diggers' sentiment of why, but some people will go to great lengths for a good chilli crab! :drunk1
There won't be an Australian/Indian show of force in the Indian Ocean. If there are going to be a show of force, it would be at Fiji, not Christmas or the Cocos Islands.And it appears Australia and India would be on the same side at Fiji anyway.
India is much more preoccupied with Pakistan and vice a versa. Australia isn't even on their radar screen.
I would rather see Australia acquire a few more submarines than purchase and man a carrier of any size. As it is Australia is acquiring 2 LHDs of good size. Maybe in the future they may acquire a dozen or so F-35Bs for the LHDs, but only after the air force replaces the F-111s and F/A-18s.
India is much more preoccupied with Pakistan and vice a versa. Australia isn't even on their radar screen.
I would rather see Australia acquire a few more submarines than purchase and man a carrier of any size. As it is Australia is acquiring 2 LHDs of good size. Maybe in the future they may acquire a dozen or so F-35Bs for the LHDs, but only after the air force replaces the F-111s and F/A-18s.
Fighting Falcon
New Member
Tell ya what,
Personally I don't think the Aussie's need a carrier YET. If they have plans for one, they should start with funds and try making their surface fleet stronger. The RSAF has the perfect plane for supporting the fleet aswell...They F-18 hornet
. Soon australia will have the F-35 am i not correct? So they need a platform in which to nest these (after all this will be the most advanced plane in the RSAF). In addition to that, A carrier is required to increase the RSAF air craft range. Not to mention surprise attacks. Considering that if the RSAF were to go to war, the enemies would be at a range (its quite obvious since they dont share borders with different countries.
In 2015-18 Australia should think about aquiring a carrier to further push its future needs. This would REALLY improve its strike capability.
Personally I don't think the Aussie's need a carrier YET. If they have plans for one, they should start with funds and try making their surface fleet stronger. The RSAF has the perfect plane for supporting the fleet aswell...They F-18 hornet
. Soon australia will have the F-35 am i not correct? So they need a platform in which to nest these (after all this will be the most advanced plane in the RSAF). In addition to that, A carrier is required to increase the RSAF air craft range. Not to mention surprise attacks. Considering that if the RSAF were to go to war, the enemies would be at a range (its quite obvious since they dont share borders with different countries. In 2015-18 Australia should think about aquiring a carrier to further push its future needs. This would REALLY improve its strike capability.
Confused here. Why the discussion about RSAF assets?Fighting Falcon said:Tell ya what,
Personally I don't think the Aussie's need a carrier YET. If they have plans for one, they should start with funds and try making their surface fleet stronger. The RSAF has the perfect plane for supporting the fleet aswell...They F-18 hornet
In 2015-18 Australia should think about aquiring a carrier to further push its future needs. This would REALLY improve its strike capability.
As for me, a carrier is a dead loss for Oz needs. for a variety of reasons:
- manning issues
- resource dilution across non fleet assigned units
- intensive protection issues
- to service fleets west and east + allow for redundancy would mean 3 platforms needed to be purchased. otherwise you end up with a capability gap when one is down for servicing. thats close to $6bn AUD per fleet for a fully configured combat fleet assuming that you include SSK's as "floating" sniffers (esp in wartime)
if we need to shift fixed air combat then buy JSF-C's and rotate them off the LHA's.
A decent CSF needs to have an AW, ASW, sub, AOR component to be autonomous - and in real terms, that balance will shift depending on the enemy. but in war time you would double the combat escorts of each type.
the threat matrix doesn't justify their use - and I can't see it in the near future either as there are far better solutions to take the fight to an enemy.
agree completely.Sea Toby said:
the only problem with fiji was the fact that the native fijians were (and unfortunately still are) anti-indian as far as election results are concerrned.
in fact the odds are looking on the negative side that another coup could occur.
in both prev coups because of the hostility towards indian fijians and indians, it would have been highly inopportune for the indian military to make their presence felt - it would have caused greater civil unrest. That was the clear articulated concerns made to the Indian Govt. I remember it clearly as I was attached to International Division at the time. In addition my cousin was a Departmental Liaison Officer attached to new Delhi - so he was in constant contact. One of the reasons why Aust had greater visibility in both crises was due to:
- existing military relationships meant that we were better placed to diffuse problems - a lot of the officer corp of the fijian military had trained in australia so relationships were strong
- australia was better placed to evacuate indian or indian/fijian nationals
- an Indian military presence could have triggered strong reprisals against the local indians - and it would have been a bloodbath
- CHOGM elected to get australia and NZ to diffuse it as much as possible due to existing ties.
an Indian intervention to extract locals would still raise concerns as outlined above. I would imagine that India would work though australia or CHOGM to achieve a quiet outcome.
On issues of threat - India is not on the radar screen for australia - and they were only on it during the cold war when the "west"/NATO weren't sure which way they'd jump with the Soviets. For instance, I've never ever heard of India having nukes targetted at it even though they were strongly aligned to the sovs.
There has been a concerted effort by both countries to normalise. even in the ugly days of the fiji coup, and the malvinas, india withdrew her embassy staff - but did not ask for australian diplomatic staff to leave new delhi. My cousin was actually asked to stay and served the new delhi posting for some 8 years (somewhat of a record for int'l diplomatic postings)
both countries work together on a range of issues now - its a far more healthier and mature relationship.
Yes, in the South Pacific, air dominance is not in doubt for Australia, simply because no other nation has fighters to challenge the RAAF. The French have an ability to deploy to their territories in the South Pacific, but no other country (with the exception of the US) can challenge Australia for air dominance. The same goes for the West and South of Australia. The closest Neighbour to the north is also in no position to challenge Australia (theoretically if it wanted to). So a CV is only of use to Australia if it wants to be able to operate in an environment where it has no access to airfields. Frankly that is not (and should not be) on Australia’s agenda.
The ability to deploy troops in a low-medium threat environment is for more in Australia’s interest as the comments on Fiji above and news on the Solomon’s today shows, not forgetting that PNG is probably not in much better condition. The ability to deploy to protect nationals (from Australia and other countries) and expand that deployment to maintain law and order would seem to be far more of a priority to me.
The ability to deploy troops in a low-medium threat environment is for more in Australia’s interest as the comments on Fiji above and news on the Solomon’s today shows, not forgetting that PNG is probably not in much better condition. The ability to deploy to protect nationals (from Australia and other countries) and expand that deployment to maintain law and order would seem to be far more of a priority to me.
I'd agree with most of the statements above disagreeing with having a carrier at present. We don't have the funding nor the personnel for an entire carrier group. Also, nobody has mentioned how many carriers the US have in the pacific region. I'm pretty sure they have plenty in both the Pacific and the Indian Ocean.
BUT, assuming we COULD afford to purchase AND maintain an entire carrier group with full personnel capacity, then sure. We should be getting F-35s and to my knowledge they can be fitted with VTOL so they can put assigned to carriers. But only if we had additional funding to the ADF and these costs would not force any cuts in other spending. Also, only if attaining a carrier force was of high priority to the ADF.
BUT, assuming we COULD afford to purchase AND maintain an entire carrier group with full personnel capacity, then sure. We should be getting F-35s and to my knowledge they can be fitted with VTOL so they can put assigned to carriers. But only if we had additional funding to the ADF and these costs would not force any cuts in other spending. Also, only if attaining a carrier force was of high priority to the ADF.
davidcandy
New Member
The problem isn't that India would want phosphate but that India may hurt Australia's interests while seeking advantage over a country like China.
India or China may decide to inderdict the other's sea lines of communication (read oil tankers). Where they choose as a base may not be their terrority. This is how us and our neighbours may get sucked into a war that isn't even about us.
I'd also think that too much analysis here is abourt force on force. If one is outclassed in the air or sea then only an idiot would contest that way. Why would an airforce that cannot win offer or accept battle with the RAAF (or vice versa). Much better to keep as an Airforce in being or use where the RAAF aren't. Likewise if our subs are going to be sunk attacking a CBG then use the subs for something else like as suggested closing the enemy's SLOCs, either to their advanced forces or to their economy.
Also ships are so dear and each ship has or almost has strategic weight. Why would someone risk their carrier. Likewise if Australia had one carrier would it be able to be risked in battle. "Ozzie carrier sunk" would cause a government a lot of problems if that headline appears on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald.
India or China may decide to inderdict the other's sea lines of communication (read oil tankers). Where they choose as a base may not be their terrority. This is how us and our neighbours may get sucked into a war that isn't even about us.
I'd also think that too much analysis here is abourt force on force. If one is outclassed in the air or sea then only an idiot would contest that way. Why would an airforce that cannot win offer or accept battle with the RAAF (or vice versa). Much better to keep as an Airforce in being or use where the RAAF aren't. Likewise if our subs are going to be sunk attacking a CBG then use the subs for something else like as suggested closing the enemy's SLOCs, either to their advanced forces or to their economy.
Also ships are so dear and each ship has or almost has strategic weight. Why would someone risk their carrier. Likewise if Australia had one carrier would it be able to be risked in battle. "Ozzie carrier sunk" would cause a government a lot of problems if that headline appears on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald.
Double number of Subs and Australia would posess an awesome deterrent/strike force that should be able to cover any eventuality. I'm pretty sure GF mentioned that 8 Collins class Subs were to be built... at a guess I would say that covered what the Govt perceived to be all contingencies.
Six subs appear to me to be far too few number to cater for a situation where our SLOC has been compromised. Numbers offer redundancy through attrition/maintenance and provide flexibility plus if the almost unthinkable did happen and war occurs, it would be impossible to build Subs and train personnel in a timely fashion.
What about a Collins class batch 2?
Six subs appear to me to be far too few number to cater for a situation where our SLOC has been compromised. Numbers offer redundancy through attrition/maintenance and provide flexibility plus if the almost unthinkable did happen and war occurs, it would be impossible to build Subs and train personnel in a timely fashion.
What about a Collins class batch 2?
davidcandy
New Member
It was 6 with an option of 2 more. Surprise, surprise we didn't take the options. We didn't take the kiwi options for more ANZACs. Low numbers mean they become strategic targets.
I'm a believer in buying assets to mothball. If one can't man 8 subs buy them anyway and mothball 2. If they are needed conscription will provide manpower. If we aren't perpared to conscript then the war isn't that important to us. [Note I'm against conscription as a social policy but not as a military necessity policy]
This is indicitive of the typical military lies that all wars are short and all enemies are merely targets.
People who attack think they can win. Therefore our enemies will have advantages else they won't start the war. Nor will they fight the war to the Australian Defence Force's strengths.
I'm a believer in buying assets to mothball. If one can't man 8 subs buy them anyway and mothball 2. If they are needed conscription will provide manpower. If we aren't perpared to conscript then the war isn't that important to us. [Note I'm against conscription as a social policy but not as a military necessity policy]
This is indicitive of the typical military lies that all wars are short and all enemies are merely targets.
People who attack think they can win. Therefore our enemies will have advantages else they won't start the war. Nor will they fight the war to the Australian Defence Force's strengths.