This is a discussion on A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN? within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; NOT ONCE DID THE BRITISH TASK FORCE AIRCRAFT STRIKE ARGIE AIR FORCE BASES! They were barely able to provide a ...
NOT ONCE DID THE BRITISH TASK FORCE AIRCRAFT STRIKE ARGIE AIR FORCE BASES! They were barely able to provide a loose CAP at the extreme range of the Argie Air Force... The Briitish had two light carriers... What makes anyone think the Aussies could do so with one light carrier?
But the RAF did try to strike the Argie bases, and that was hardly successful or endorcement of long range land based airstriking. It highlighted the weaknesses of operating aircraft at extreme ranges. They were long range bombers as well, not medium range multirole strike fighters.
Regionally Australia isn't facing anything like what the UK was facing. A few modern multirole aircraft on a flattop would be hugely effective in this region. Many countries can count the number of modernish aircraft (not just fighters) that have operational (of any kind) capability on a single hand!
Regionally who would we need such equipment for? The airforces regionally that would have any sort of capability would be Singapore, Japan and China. I don't think Australia is terribly worried about Singapore or Japan at this stage.
Any carrier Australia had would not be to striking those countries directly from a carrier. But a carrier could be useful to assist in interception or deterrent of aircraft away from Australia and her interests.
While I think mainland Australia is never going to be under threat there are areas that may be exposed. Remote islands and terroritories, developing nations such as East Timor, PNG, and various pacific nations. There may be times where due to a complex political situation the US is on one side and Australia is on the other side of the fence, due to a bigger picture issue interests may be in different directions.
The carrier would not be a permanent solution, but one that would simply buy time or reduce options to opposing forces. That time may be very important. While the US would no doubt assist Australia in an all out war, against Australian citizens. I think in a murkier situation, EEZ, resources, a 3rd party nation etc, a decision would be made, but it may be further down on the USA priority list than Australia's and the way they may assist might not be what your expecting.
I think the biggest lessons out of the Faulklands is that if you want things done your way you need the tools to do it, wars don't always come from the enemies you think you will fight and that having a superpower doesn't solve all the worlds problems.
Im not arguing that the RAN desperately needs a carrier. I think that is a waste of money (at this stage). But the RAN should be structured to accept a carrier if needed, and that possibly a set of (perhaps remote and unlikely) circumstances could arise that having one would be a very good thing. I believe that its currently the case with the LHD and AWD, while the RAN hasn't been structured to preclude a carrier, it does not mean the RAN is getting a dedicated fulltime aircraft carrier.
So just to get us back on track and keeping with the "Hypothetical" nature of the thread, if it was to "Hypothetically" happen I would like to see a modified Canberra class for several reasons.
To modify a Canberra class on the back of the current constructions would make sence financially, and would be smart from a maint and operational point of view as well. Similar platform with common operating systems make it much easier to maintain and better logistically as well. A modified Canberra without the welldock deck specifically designed for STOVL operations, increased fuel and ammo bunkerage, obviously more appropriate self defence systems, air control etc. The advantage of this is that when it is in refit you can still maintain the flight crews, pilots etc on the LHD's. Unlike the old days of ship design, all these things are now done on computer, so to do so along with the Spanish learnings from the PDA, would not be very difficult at all. And with Spain potentially replacing the PDA with a modified version of the LHD anyway, I would not be surprised if plans have not aready (or are in the process of) being done ? The one thing that may be considered is the propulsion system of the ship ? would you stay with the current system ? Without the weight of the well dock deck would the overall top speed of the ship increase due to less bulk ? potentiall into the 25/26 knot range, or would you convert the extra space into 4 LM2500 running 2 shafts for a better matched speed to the AWD's, Anzac II's etc ?
Here is a pic that was posted in the JC thread
That brings us to who will fly and maintain the aircraft ?? While I would love to see the FAA run these out of Nowra (The ex pusser in me) for the potential number of airframes needed, once again from a financial and maint point of view the RAAF would be the smart option. Obviously before the ship comes into port most aircraft actually leave the ship for the air base for maint etc, so no different if they are instead heading to Williamtown where you already have trained maintainers and logistical support ? Just a thought
Makes me wonder if the Falkland's had not happened and we did get the the Brit carrier where would we be at now ? Would we still be buying the LHD's ? or would we be buying 2 STOVL carriers ?
Makes me wonder if the Falkland's had not happened and we did get the the Brit carrier where would we be at now ? Would we still be buying the LHD's ? or would we be buying 2 STOVL carriers ?
I don't know, but it has been shown by several nations including the US, UK and Australia that while Carriers can rerole as LPH's, LPH's & LHD's cannot realistically rerole as Aircraft carriers.
Examples being HMAS Sydney, USS Kittyhawk, the Essex Class conversions, Centaur class conversions and the Invincible class.
Whilst we all like to hark back to the Falklands, times have changed, there are now so many deep strike systems available to supplement what was then expected to be carried by strike carrier aircraft. With Tac-Tom nations have the ability to neutralise littoral enemy air bases (targetting pilot accommodation and aircraft staging areas) at the outset of hostilities thus removing part of the threat to the fleet early on, after all the best form of defence is always attack. The only constraint being the political will to take the fight to the enemies shore rather than keep it localised (Falklands style exclusion zone). If the UK had submarine launched Tomahawk's in 82 they would have most definitely used them against Argentina's littoral air bases. Thatcher would have signed the order as soon as Sheffield was whacked, failure to do so would have exposed her to huge criticism at home for failing to protect servicemen's lives and demonstrate appropriate duty of care.
The advantage of having a Carrier is the fixed wing aircraft can fulfil a myriad of tasks (CAP, CAS, SEAD, Reccon, Fly-by warning etc) and can deploy munitions in large numbers, which cost a fraction of the price of a Tac-Tom or equivalent long range system. This cost advantage is offset however by the number of resources needed to operate, maintain and keep fix-wing assets carrier qualified.
Looking forward, if Aus upgrades/buys Tac-Tom capable deep strike submarines, which have the ability to hurt an enemy at range you remove one of the requirements for carrier based aircraft. Also I can't see a scenario whereby Aus needs ship borne CAP, which would not involve the Americans or the UK (five powers defence agreement). Other than a Pearl Harbour style surprise attack I would expect to see an American strike carrier in the vicinity in a matter of days. If we look at a drawnout Korea style confrontation the Aussie fleet would form part of a coalition task force including carriers from a number of UN member nations.
Escort carriers used to serve as stop-gap carriers. That meant providing limited fleet air defence in the escort role and supporting amphibious landings in the secondary role. That role evolved into the sea control ship concept in the 60/70s and then to the LHD concept we see today which has been validated.
Non-fighter capable LHDs perform the secondary role with helos and may perform the escort role in the ASW dimension. That's probably the capability of the Canberras.
Light carriers were intended to supplement fleet carriers. That meant fleet speed with limited fighter/strike capabilities but operate singularly in less contested waters. That was the role of the Melbourne until 1982 (although there were plans to convert it into an ASW helo carrier). Ironically, that singular carrier provided stellar service until it was supposed to be replaced by the Invincible.
In its service, fixed wing a/c and subs have never been able to fully replicate the capabilities of the Melbourne. However, that since its de-commissioning, I agree Australian defence needs has changed.
So I will dedicate this post to the memory of the HMAS Melbourne (the namesake of its equally beautiful city where I spent several months in) with this link:
Melbourne was an ASW Carrier. The vast majority of aircraft she carried had an ASW focus, these were the Wessex/Sea King and the S-2's.
The primary role of the A4's on the Melbourne was fleet air defense. To allow the engagement of targets beyond the range of the Perth class detroyers.
I'd add that Melbourne was pretty borderline when she ran Skyhawks, the cost to get her to be able to drive anything bigger than the scooters was completely out of the question - and she was as you said purpose modded to drive small jets.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
But the RAF did try to strike the Argie bases, and that was hardly successful or endorcement of long range land based airstriking. It highlighted the weaknesses of operating aircraft at extreme ranges. They were long range bombers as well, not medium range multirole strike fighters.....
You are confusing Stanley airport with Argentinean air force bases.
There were no attacks on Argentinean air force bases.
The runway at Stanley was bombed to inhibit Argentinean resupply by air & forestall any attempt to extend the runway & use it as a fighter base. No such attempt was made. The only Argentinean combat aircraft flown from the Falklands were Pucaras (which can & did use grass strips) & MB339 trainer/attack aircraft.
You are confusing Stanley airport with Argentinean air force bases.
There were no attacks on Argentinean air force bases.
The runway at Stanley was bombed to inhibit Argentinean resupply by air & forestall any attempt to extend the runway & use it as a fighter base. No such attempt was made. The only Argentinean combat aircraft flown from the Falklands were Pucaras (which can & did use grass strips) & MB339 trainer/attack aircraft.
Its really semantics. Airfields in the Falklands were technically argie until the brits took it back. More accurately there were no attacks on argie afbs on the mainland.
There were technically several airstrips on the falklands. Only stanley, goose green and pebble island were used by the argentine military. Mount pleasant was not built at the time of the falklands which meant that the 4500 ft airstrip at stanley was the sole paved runway.
Pebble island was the subject of a brilliant commando raid which whacked off most the T-34s (as well as a large number of pucaras). The other 2 were bombed by Harriers.
The T-34s would be the other argie combat a/c stationed at falklands.
It is noted that the pucara did managed to down a scout helo.
Its really semantics. Airfields in the Falklands were technically argie until the brits took it back. More accurately there were no attacks on argie afbs on the mainland.
There were technically several airstrips on the falklands. Only stanley, goose green and pebble island were used by the argentine military. Mount pleasant was not built at the time of the falklands which meant that the 4500 ft airstrip at stanley was the sole paved runway.
Pebble island was the subject of a brilliant commando raid which whacked off most the T-34s (as well as a large number of pucaras). The other 2 were bombed by Harriers.
The T-34s would be the other argie combat a/c stationed at falklands.
It is noted that the pucara did managed to down a scout helo.
WHOOPPIE! Australia needs a light carrier to strike grounded prop airplanes.... A bit of an overkill don't you think? The reason why the British didn't use carrier borne aircraft to strike Argie air bases with scores of jet fighter aircraft in Argentina was the simple fact the British refused to risk their light carriers by closing the range...
I do however think an escort role would be improved with navy fighter cover and I have stated why.
Don't forget that the people who suggested the Canberras incorporate a flight deck weren't just enthusiasts. They would know what they're talking about.
I recognise the AU ministry in recent and current governments doesn't think its necessary which is what matters. However, that does not invalidate the highlighted benefits. Just that the benefits do not, in ministry's opinion, outweigh the cost.
I recognise the AU ministry in recent and current governments doesn't think its necessary which is what matters. However, that does not invalidate the highlighted benefits. Just that the benefits do not, in ministry's opinion, outweigh the cost.
AUSGovt take their lead on these procurement issues from Navy and Joint Ops Command.
The reason why we got LHD's was because it was a Joint decision - with RANs blessing.
None of the Services want fixed wing combat capable carriers. It was a purple decison borne out of the experience of East Timor and future warfighting projections.
Govt does not determine doctrine
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
AUSGovt take their lead on these procurement issues from Navy and Joint Ops Command.
The reason why we got LHD's was because it was a Joint decision - with RANs blessing.
None of the Services want fixed wing combat capable carriers. It was a purple decison borne out of the experience of East Timor and future warfighting projections.
Govt does not determine doctrine
The Govt may take their lead from the subject matter experts but budget is still a constraint that is in the ultimate purview of the Ministry. I see the armed forces as synonymous with the Govt
Even if the RAN wanted a carrier, it would still have to work within budgets and consider opportunity costs. The F-35Bs will cost more than the F-35A to procure and maintain besides the interoperability issues (fleet air arm doesn't have fixed wing a/c). I think we all know its a lot more complex than just stating anyone wants carriers. If there's no budget, the RAN can require all it wants but won't get it. On the other hand, history has examples of governments procuring arms that the armed forces didn't want.
It may be a joint decision but I'm pretty sure there would be RAN officers that wouldn't mind a chance to command a CV, budget willing.
I think it would be interesting to speculate the circumstances under which current matrices/decisions would have to be "updated".
I think it would be pretty far off to say that a CV would be a white elephant in RAN service. I do however agree that opportunity costs could render a CV to be of less value as compared to current procurement plans.
It may be a joint decision but I'm pretty sure there would be RAN officers that wouldn't mind a chance to command a CV, budget willing.
I do however agree that opportunity costs could render a CV to be of less value as compared to current procurement plans.
Frankly, the carrier advocates are so desperate for one, but if Australia were to do it right they would require at least two, doubling the advocates costs... But the carrier advocates don't really care about costs or personnel shortages, all they want is the toy...
Frankly, the carrier advocates are so desperate for one, but if Australia were to do it right they would require at least two, doubling the advocates costs... But the carrier advocates don't really care about costs or personnel shortages, all they want is the toy...
On our current force disposition we wouold need at lesst 3 - and in all likelihood 4.
we do not have the spend or resources available to support one let alone 2-4.
Navy have looked at this properly.
Unfort some of the advocates have little appreciation of what the through life costs are to support a task force/fleet - its not just about supporting a carrier.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
