Does Australia need an aircraft carrier?

[Sea Toby]

Frankly, aircraft carriers cannot operate around the clock forever, they only have one flight deck crew. This is the reason why America likes to operate two carriers together, to provide the around the clock capability.

While the American marines deploy abroad in their landing ships all of the time, usually nations with standing armies don't deploy their landing ships until the army fills the ship. Consequently many smaller nations are looking for multi-role vessels to fill their sealift needs, as they do not wish to man a ship sitting at anchor. The French will soon have two Mistrals, but they intend to use one for a training ship most of the time. The British in the past have mothballed one of their two major landing ships.

Currently, a decade after the Cold War ended, and with a large number of peacekeeping operations around the world, there are a lot of nations acquiring multi-role vessels or amphibious ships, as they see a need for army sealift. Many nations are acquiring these assets at the expense of their naval warfare capability, reducing the size of their surface warfare fleet. There are also many nations acquiring ocean patrol vessels instead of frigates which have seen their cost rise significantly with newer missile systems and more sophisticated combat data control systems.

Whichever ship Australia chooses, the Australians will never use both ships as a light carrier, therefore, there is no need to operate one as a light carrier either. The one flight deck crew cannot go on forever without sleep. The Mistral design does have the smaller hangar, the Spanish design does have the larger hangar, but the Mistral can carry 16 NH-90s, which is more than sufficient in the amphibious and humanitarian relief roles Australia intends to operate the ship.

In my opinion Australian Navy would be better off with a few more submarines and a few more surface warships than to acquire a light carrier. Or better, the Australian Air Force would be better off with a few more tankers and transport planes too. It seems after everyone cashed in the peace dividend, all of these nations are now more interested in supply and support, rather than the sharp fighting end of their armed forces.

Will Australia man and have their new amphibious ships fully loaded and ready all of the time. Or will they attempt to use one of their two LHDs as a training ship, or even mothball it? Ships fully crewed by the navy sitting at anchor waste a lot of operational funding. Only time will tell. Of course, the navy would love to get F-35Bs and play light carrier with these ships when the army isn't using them for sealift. However, I don't think the Australian Air Force will allow the navy to play light carrier, and the army will see its sealift asset disappear if they are used as a light carrier. Catch 22?

It is also my opinion one aircraft carrier isn't enough? You need two to provide around the clock capability without wearing out the flight deck crew. Yes, I think Brazil is crazy, they should have acquired the Hermes and India should have acquired the Foch.

Acquiring two LHDs used as amphibious ship is great, attempting to use one as a light carrier or acquiring another as a light carrier is a bad idea. Now if you ask me if Australia should acquire two, that's another answer. But another question arises, can Australia afford and man two light carriers? The answer sadly is no. And the navy knows exactly where I am coming from, probably the main reason why the admirals didn't revolt back in the early 1980s when the Melbourne was decommissioned is the admirals knew one isn't enough, you might as well have none.

 

[Big-E]

Frankly, aircraft carriers cannot operate around the clock forever, they only have one flight deck crew. This is the reason why America likes to operate two carriers together, to provide the around the clock capability.

US carriers can operate 24/7 for weeks on end. Have you ever heard of shifts??? There is more than one flight crew. While this situation isn't ideal I have seen it before. ie Big-E in Afghanistan

 

[Big-E]

In my opinion Australian Navy would be better off with a few more submarines and a few more surface warships than to acquire a light carrier. Or better, the Australian Air Force would be better off with a few more tankers and transport planes too. It seems after everyone cashed in the peace dividend, all of these nations are now more interested in supply and support, rather than the sharp fighting end of their armed forces.

What is the problem with converting the LHDs from light carrier to landing ship as needed. It's not like they cannot be multirole vessles. Just off load your extra air-platforms when you need more sea-lift capability. The advantage to this above tankered flights, you sit there whining about the flight deck crew and fatigue, what about the pilots??? Do you want them running 5hr sorties? What about turn around time? Not having some form of sea based platform wether light carrier or LHD would make the RAAF impotent in long range encounters. The pilots woud be exhausted and it would take forever to re-arm the aircraft. Having an LHD with some F-35s on it would increase the sortie rate by a dozen times!

It is also my opinion one aircraft carrier isn't enough? You need two to provide around the clock capability without wearing out the flight deck crew. Yes, I think Brazil is crazy.

So you think Brazil is crazy... She got her carrier for 12 million and her air-wing of Skyhawks for 70million. Can you beat that bargain? I don't think so!!! It certainly gives Brazil more capability than any of her neighbors, even if they can't operate one 365 days a year. They would have been crazy to pass it up!

 

[gf0012-aust]

WOFTAM imo.

Aust has carriage of responsibility for protecting and policing 1/9th of the worlds blue and green waterways.

We're a small nation, with the population of Mumbai - and the largest island continent on the planet, plus the 5th largest country overall on real estate issues.

A carrier fleet needs redundancy, and in real terms to cover the attrition and maint cycles, that means that there needs to be a minimum of two vessels - and if we are to maintain two autonomous fleets - then three vessels.

quite frankly, our threat matrix doesn't justify the expense of a 3 carrier requirement.

Cost of maintaining 2 full carrier fleets, plus the spare for attrition means a $4-$6bn outlay per year in addition to autonomous assets.

1. we don't have the manning resources
2. the threat matrix doesn't warrant it
3. for an outgoing of $4-6bn per year, that would fund LRMP, AAR and long range strike as well as an additional short squadron of subs.
4. we can already see over 3500km "away" at the moment. that means that in the high risk areas of SLOC and dominant sealane approaches, we can already see who and what is coming, be it air or surface. No regional or trans-regional surface fleet is going to be in position to launch anything without us knowing.
5. Our allies already run significant maritime and ISR resources in the Indian Ocean (for example).
6. The second largest sub warfare training area in the world is run by the RAN on the west coast - so our subs are already in place to deal with likely approach threats and likely ISR jobs.

Would I rather have subs or a carrier to deal with maritime issues in our region? Subs - every time. Esp as ASW regional strengths are somewhat lacking, and we know that we have some of the fastest non nuclear underwater assets in the world (the honour goes to the Japanese for the fastest non nuke) - so we know that getting on station in a rapid time frame is not a signif issue.

Besides, the LHA's can always pick up defacto carrier roles if pressed. If that is the case thats on the backburner - then expect the LHA with the largest bunkerage and internal deck height to get selected.

a carrier is a high risk asset, it requires significant ASW and AAW organic capability with todays missiles and torpedo technologies. In an australian sense, a properly configured CSF will substantially remove other essential assets from our flexible response list

 

[Sea Toby]

As I recall Australia is a nation of around 20 million, Brazil has a population of 170 million, quite a bit of difference. While Brazil did very well getting the Foch and the former Kuwaiti A-4 Skyhawks, Brazil's economy and unemployment rate isn't similar to Australia's. For the same amount of expenditure, Brazil could have opened up a new air base in any location, preferrably in a location of weakness. None of the other South Amerian nations have the military personnel to keep up with Brazil's armed forces.

If this ship is still steaming 20 years from now, Brazil maybe able to acquire cast off F/A-18 Hornets to replace the Skyhawks. But since Brazil is the big gorilla in South America, does the aircraft carrier fill any void in their defenses? Couldn't the air force do a better job defending Brazilian air space? Wouldn't Brazil be better off with either more frigates, ocean patrol vessels, minehunters, or submarines?

On the other hand India does have island chains off its coast at a considerable distance from the rest of India. Can Brazil say the same?

Getting back on thread, if I can ask these questions about Brazil and its 170 million people, I can surely ask these questions about Australia and its much smaller 20 million citizens. I have noticed recently Australia opening up empty air bases on its northern coast, empty bases which can be used in a conflict similar to Saudi Arabia. Surely the Hornets can fly much faster to these useful empty bases, whereas an aircraft carrier task force can take days to arrive depending where its stationed.

If Australia was attacked on its northwest coast, the air force would fly its fighters off the carrier into battle immediately, not waiting for an aircraft carrier to deploy. Therefore the question of this thread, does Australia really need a carrier, and wouldn't it be better to have two instead of one? Yes, if Australia bought the F-35Bs, one of the LHDs could be switched to a light carrier asset, but is it really necessary?

 

[Big-E]

If this ship is still steaming 20 years from now, Brazil maybe able to acquire cast off F/A-18 Hornets to replace the Skyhawks. But since Brazil is the big gorilla in South America, does the aircraft carrier fill any void in their defenses? Couldn't the air force do a better job defending Brazilian air space?

So why are you bringing up Brazil, you said they were crazy to only get one, all i said was they would have been crazy to pass up the price. The utility of the Sao Paulo extends her light strike and ASW capabilities far beyond her shores. She is not intended for air defense.

Wouldn't Brazil be better off with either more frigates, ocean patrol vessels, minehunters, or submarines?

No she wouldn't be better off. One minesweeper costs as much as she paid for Sao Paulo.

I have noticed recently Australia opening up empty air bases on its northern coast, empty bases which can be used in a conflict similar to Saudi Arabia. Surely the Hornets can fly much faster to these useful empty bases, whereas an aircraft carrier task force can take days to arrive depending where its stationed.

What good is an empty air base, by the time you get all the equipment there the war is over.

If Australia was attacked on its northwest coast, the air force would fly its fighters off the carrier into battle immediately, not waiting for an aircraft carrier to deploy. Therefore the question of this thread, does Australia really need a carrier, and wouldn't it be better to have two instead of one? Yes, if Australia bought the F-35Bs, one of the LHDs could be switched to a light carrier asset, but is it really necessary?

The whole point of a carrier is force projection, your looking at it from a defensive stand point. When one looks at it defensively then no it is not necessary. All of these goals can be attained by ground based aircraft. If you want sustainable sortie rates in far off regions you need a naval based platform.

 

[Aussie Digger]

What good is an empty air base, by the time you get all the equipment there the war is over.

The point is that aircraft and support assets can be deployed to bare bases within days. RAAF Scherger (bare base North of Cairns in Queensland) was activated last year for an exercise. It CAN and is done on a reasonably regular basis in Australia.

It can certainly be activated more quickly than sailing an aircraft carrier from fleet base West or East, where any "light carrier" would be based.

The point of a "light carrier" in Australian service, would be to provide additional air defence and strike capability beyond the range of land based aircraft. Whether it is in defence of Australia or on Expeditionary warfare is irrelevant, in the rationale ofr the capability.

If the need for air defence or strike capability exists beyond the range of land based aircraft, we have little choice. Our vaunted air warfare destroyers (like any surface vessel) is going to possess limited air defence capability, if not support by AWACS type aircraft, whether Australian or not. "picket lines" are fine and extend their coverage, but we will only have 11 major surface combatants in total.

Any conceivable picket line of Australian ships is going to be no more than 3 or so vessels. Hardly an extensive layered air defence system (IMHO). Attempting to deploy any more, is simply going to leave Australia extremely thinly stretched.

As such, our fleet remains relatively vulnerable to air attack, whilst a sea based air defence capability (provided by aircraft) does not exist.

The argument to and fro about light carriers, based on the LHD's in my opinion, ignores the inherent flexibility of these vessels. Certainly they will never provide the capability of a large CTOL based carrier and yes, using the vessel (assuming the SPS is chosen) will reduce any amphibious capability they possess.

However such a capability, if chosen at least ALLOWS us the flexibility to use this capability if necessary. I do not advocate the acquisition of it over ANY other capability, but rather as an adjunct.

F-35's are more than likely to be selected for the RAAF. If sufficient funding is available for 5x operational Sqn's, I think it would be exceedingly useful for a Sqn of F-35B's to be acquired, in addition to the 4x F-35A's. These aircraft though lacking in range and performance compared to the "A" model provide useful capability in other areas beside carrier ops, as shown by the USMC deployment of land based AV-8B Harriers during GW2.

These aircraft were often the FIRST (ie: quickest) available air support over Iraq that could support the troops, due to how close they were able to deploy because of their STOVL capability. They don't require 3000m long runways, unlike conventional aircraft, and as such are inherently flexible because of this.

The possession of a Sqn of these aircraft WOULD allow us the option to maintain a "light carrier" capability, if it were so required. Situations may occur where Australian forces require air support, beyond the range of land based aircraft, for whatever reason, whether it be platform issues, or basing issues, etc.

No-one is suggesting for 1 minute that Army forgoe it's amphib support capability, that it will gain with these news ships. F-35B's however, would allow the RAN, RAAF and Army un-precedented (in ADF history) flexibility with their force packages, and this is why I AM in favour of them.

It would be expensive, it would impinge on other elements of capability, such as vehicle and helo carrying capacity and at the end of the day, would clearly be outclassed by other aircraft carriers.


As to funding and manning issues. Obviously greater funding would be required to acquire F-35B's. They are a slightly different aircraft than the F-35A's that we intend to acquire, and I don't advocate getting them, unless we can afford at least 4x other Sqn's of conventional F-35A's.

Manning should not prove any more difficult than it would be if we acquired the 5x operational Sqn's anyway. RAAF is doing well with it's pilot recruiting and retention and is least likely to be unable to fill these positions out of the 3 services.

 

[davidcandy]

Many Australian deployments do not require troops such as sanctions enforcements in the Persian Gulf. LPDs are useless in such scenarios, though they can act as a frigate I suppose as merchant ships aren't armed.

During the Tanker war air attacks were conducted with very limited numbers of aircraft. It makes sense to have LPDs able to act as an aircraft carrier. It doesn't need many aircraft.

I personally am against a purpose built carrier due to opportunity cost. As most merchant ships can be made into emergency carriers for VTOL I would support buying the F35B as it gives flexability. They can also hide if deployed on land against a superior airforce. While logistics wouldn't be available early in a war to support this - we do have lots of trucks in Australia that could be pressed into service.

While military spending can ensure stability it is generally, from an economic point of view, a waste of money - at least for those on the strategic defensive. Money spent on bombs is money not spent on factories. Spending less today means the economy grows faster and gives one the ability to spend more in the future, when one might need to spend money to survive.

 

[contedicavour]

navies with one aircraft carrier

Having even only one carrier allows a navy to have deployment capabilities on the other side of the world, even if only for 6 months every year.
Think of France, true, the De Gaulle is operational 50% of the time. But look at what it is doing now in the Indian Ocean, leading an entire battle group capable of controlling air & sea in a range of more than a 100 miles all round.

To all the Australian friends in this forum, I fully understand your priority lists and the arguments that the RAAF is a superb fighting force capable of protecting your huge country.
However, please think wider : your country is based on international trade, especially of commodities. What do you do if your country's interests are threatened on the other side of the planet and there's no air base for your Hornets ? Call the Americans is the only choice...

cheers

 

[Big-E]

The point is that aircraft and support assets can be deployed to bare bases within days. RAAF Scherger (bare base North of Cairns in Queensland) was activated last year for an exercise. It CAN and is done on a reasonably regular basis in Australia.

It can certainly be activated more quickly than sailing an aircraft carrier from fleet base West or East, where any "light carrier" would be based.

Even a worst case scenerio of a carrier based at Garden Island could speed to Cairns in 36hrs. The re-activation of these bases takes longer than that. The logistics required to move all the equipment for such an endeavor is no small task.

 

[long live usa]

i will tell you what will happen to an australian carrier(lets say there facing china fantasy land i know )the carrier will be taken out if it leaves port, then australia will ask America for help then America sends in carrier groups that they can defend,australia sits back commiting its naval forces to defend its coast while American naval forces do all of the offensive operations this is my point,

Admin: Text Deleted. Plse remember the forum rules on respect

 

[HMS Cheesemaker]

What an odd post. Frankly I take offense at Australia's commitment to helping the United States militarily being compared to that of France.

A carrier would be nice, but I fall into line with others as far as submarines being a better investment for the RAN.

(Also, a hearty g'day to everyone. Don't let the HMS confuse you, I'm definitely an Australian! I'm simply of the very rare 'Pom-Loving Bastard' variety.)

 

[cobber]

Let's get this in perspective!

i will tell you what will happen to an australian carrier(lets say there facing china fantasy land i know )the carrier will be taken out if it leaves port, then australia will ask America for help then America sends in carrier groups that they can defend,australia sits back commiting its naval forces to defend its coast while American naval forces do all of the offensive operations this is my point,for example we helped out france in WW2 but when operations in iraq began they refused to even commit token forces but if they suddenly fell under atack they would have no conviction about begging the us for help !!

May I remind you that Australia has fought beside America in every major conflict last century and the century and has looked after things in its part of the world without asking for help from America e.g.East Timor, the Solomon Island and Bouganville. Please do not be so condescending America is not necessarily the be all and end all.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Even a worst case scenerio of a carrier based at Garden Island could speed to Cairns in 36hrs. The re-activation of these bases takes longer than that. The logistics required to move all the equipment for such an endeavor is no small task.

An Australian LHD, unfortunately could NOT deploy so quickly, IMHO. First of all, they will not permanently operate fighters. The RAAF will and they'll be based at Williamstown, RAAF Tindal or Pearce.

They would first have to be deployed to the ship, along with the necessary munitions and support arrangements. The ship would then have to sail to the area of operations with at least 36 hours JUST to get to Cairns, being significant, particularly when any AO is likely to be off the North West cape, rather than Cairns. Only one LHD will be available for operations in most occasions, due to maintenance and fleet readiness reasons.

Furthermore once the base is activated, it will conduct operations indefinitely, carriers, particularly light carriers are severely restricted in their ability to support continuous extended ops.

As to your opinion Long live usa, it is ill-informed to say the least, and rather ignorant IMHO. Who could possibly take out an Australian carrier, in or near it's port, except America herself? Do you even know where Australian Naval ports are???

Even in WW2 we never "begged" America for help and if you think we were helpless, trying reading some actual history of the war in the Pacific. Do you know for instance who stopped the advance of the Japanese land forces?

You also aren't real up to date in your history either. In GW1 we deployed Destroyers, frigates and an underway replenishment ship and Naval clearance divers. A small deployment, but a deployment none the less, in support of the American led operation.

In 1993 we deployed an infantry battalion group, plus armour to Somalia and took over responsibility for the entire Baidoa province from the USMC.

1998 during Operation "Desert Fox" we deployed SAS and 2x Air to air refuellers to support US ops against Iraq.

2002, we deployed SAS, Commando's and support staff to assist US ops in Afghanistan and F/A-18's to provide air defence for Diego Garcia whilst the US was running strike ops from there.

In 2003, we deployed SAS, Commando's, engineers, Chinook Helo's, F/A-18's, frigates, Amphibious warfare vessels and clearance divers to assist the US invade Iraq, whilst we were still operating in Afghanistan.

In 2005, we have re-deployed SAS, Commando's, logistics and engineers to assist the US in Afghanistan again.

We have just deployed Chinooks again to Afghan to support ours and international forces and will be sending a 2-300 troops as part of a provincial reconstruction team, including infantry and light armoured forces, to assist in reconstruction efforts.

You have to bear in mind the small size of our forces, mate. The USMC alone, for instance, is about 5-6 times larger in size than the WHOLE ADF.

If you look at these deployments, plus our operations in Rwanda, Cambodia (twice), East Timor, Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia, the Soloman Islands and Papua New Guinea (earth quake disaster ops and peace making/keeping operations), in the last 12-14 years and you'll see that we've had a VERY high operational tempo and have more than carried our weight in supporting America and other nations around the world.

If you're not happy, that's a bit too bad I'm afraid. Certainly America has been happy with the level of political and actual military capability we have provided to support them. Afterall, there's very little capability we can deploy that they can't manage themselves. It's not as if America lacks any capability that Australia possesses. In fact the complete OPPOSITE is very true...

 

[stryker NZ]

other options

i know there isnt a chance in hell that this would happen but could Australia (or other navies for that matter) opperate a amphibious warfare vessel with armed UCAVS only. This would give the RAN an aerial strike cability without causing a manning problem and give more room for amphibious operations (plus it would be cool.)

 

[Aussie Digger]

i know there isnt a chance in hell that this could happen but could Australia (or other navies for that matter) opperate a amphibious warfare vessel with armed UCAVS only. This would give the RAN an aerial strike cability without causing a manning problem and give more room for amphibious operations (plus it would be cool.)

Possibly. The RAN is looking at VTOL UAV's for it's AWD's. These could possibly be armed, with rockets and Hellfires, though it's unlikely to be armed with anything heavier. Army has a "precision guidance" requirement for the rockets on it's Tiger helo's a few years, so the RAN might be interested too...

 

[Supe]

i will tell you what will happen to an australian carrier(lets say there facing china fantasy land i know )the carrier will be taken out if it leaves port, then australia will ask America for help then America sends in carrier groups that they can defend,australia sits back commiting its naval forces to defend its coast while American naval forces do all of the offensive operations this is my point,

That's a POV born of ignorance. Your scenario paints the RAN as some tinpot navy of a 3rd world nation - buying big ticket items that it can't maintain/operate and lacking a doctrine requirement to support it. I can't say past and present Govts have done all that it could have for the RAN with platforms (air defence Destroyers) being years past in-service date but that's not a reflection on the RAN. The point is, RAN would not structure its assets to be so unbalanced as a single Carrier that could not leave port would signify. I think the RAN has largely moved on from owning assets based on ego rather than need.

The RAN though small, is a highly professional service and has a record of serving well in theatres it has been engaged in. Most of us in this thread have dismissed a Carrier because we know that current funding and manpower issues are not available for one Carrier let alone the three that would be required if Australia was serious about going into the Carrier business, plus of course support ships and platforms required to escort Carrier. If the bleeding obvious is true to us and stated by 'enthusiasts' (exempting the analysts in this thread) then you can be sure RAN brasshats/planners recognise this too. I'd imagine quite a bit of time/effort and money is tasked with assessing capability and looking at current and future requirements.

Most posters in this thread submit that bang for buck, investing in more subs would be the optimal choice against procuring Carriers. A batch 2 Collins class sub anyone?

 

[KAPITAIN]

As stated above why dont the aussies build a light carrier like HMS Ocean but instead of having it as a one role ship, make it so as it doubles up so it can carry both troops and a small amount of aircraft a bit like the wasp class LPD .

I am sure australia could just streach to that, but also the man power is not as much as a carrier nor as expencive, and the current aussie navy is more than a adaquate escort for it just one will do like the japanese ossunami class (some thing like that)

But then comes the other issue where would you use it or deploy it too?

 

[Big-E]

i will tell you what will happen to an australian carrier(lets say there facing china fantasy land i know )the carrier will be taken out if it leaves port, then australia will ask America for help then America sends in carrier groups that they can defend,australia sits back commiting its naval forces to defend its coast while American naval forces do all of the offensive operations this is my point,for example we helped out france in WW2 but when operations in iraq began they refused to even commit token forces but if they suddenly fell under atack they would have no conviction about begging the us for help !!

If you want to talk about Iraq or any other conflict the Aussies have been with us every step of the way. America can't ask for a better ally and friend! I plan to put up my 100k property investment and retire there. If PLAN or any other nation gave them trouble I would gladly resign to fly for the RAAF if the US wouldn't do anything. Just b/c they've got the hottest women I've ever seen to.

 

[Big-E]

As stated above why dont the aussies build a light carrier like HMS Ocean but instead of having it as a one role ship, make it so as it doubles up so it can carry both troops and a small amount of aircraft a bit like the wasp class LPD .

I am sure australia could just streach to that, but also the man power is not as much as a carrier nor as expencive, and the current aussie navy is more than a adaquate escort for it just one will do like the japanese ossunami class (some thing like that)

But then comes the other issue where would you use it or deploy it too?

A Wasp LPD! That ship weighs 40.5k tonnes!!! She carries a crew over a 1,000 and operates 1,600 marines with the option to berth 3500. She costs 1.4 billion dollars to build and over 100million a year to operate, in USDs. It would be nice but I don't think its in the budget.