A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[aussienscale]

I can’t help but notice that the arguments against an aircraft carrier are similar to those that were voiced against replacing the Leopard MBTs in the 90's when we realised that they were out of date and the devastating effectiveness of modern MBTs had so recently been demonstrated during Desert Storm.

We can’t afford it and even if we could our money would be better spent in other areas.
The required logistics are too expensive.
The supporting equipment and structures are the real cost (and unaffordable)
It will unbalance our force structure.
It will damage relations with other countries in the region.
It will start a regional arms race.
It will be a target and as such will be destroyed before we can make effective use of it.
We don't need it because our allies have it already and will cover for us (we hope)
We have done just fine with out having / deploying the capability for XX years.
It is past its use by date and has been superseded by XX which conveniently is much cheaper and not actually available yet so you can’t prove us wrong.
It is single use and therefore poor value for money.

As I see it the structure of the RAN is not that different than it was when we were in the carrier business, except we now have two replenisnment ships and, once the APAR ANZACs are in service, a greater number of capable escorts.

A carrier would be an addition to our capabilities not a burden on them. A flexible force multiplier that will dramatically increase the overall capability of the ADF and at the times it is unavailable the ADF will be no weaker than it would be if it didn't have a carrier at all. Infact if the carrier would most likely be used as our initial response and its place in theatre would be taken by land based and alliance assets once the necessary agreements and infrastructure had been sorted.

Agree Volkodav, and I would bet my left....... that in the next 30 years we would be more likely to use the capabilities of a Carrier than to ever use MBT's on our home shores let alone ever deploying them O/S. And I do personally see the MBT's as a capability that we don't need in the ADF

 

[Aussie Digger]

I suppose the ultimate arguement that a carrier is doable for the ADF is that we are confident that we can adequately protect the virtually defenceless Canberras when they deploy carrying approximately a quarter of of regular land combat force. A carrier on the other hand would dramatically increase the defensive capability of any task force we deployed, providing an extreme outer layer air, surface and subsurface defence before you consider the fact you would also be able to reach out and touch a prospective enemy at even greater ranges.

The carriers air group would become the groups primary ISR, defensive and offensive asset, an asset we can legally position 200Nm off any coast in the world.

Agreed, I have no problem with the capability, but the means to pursue it, I find wanting at the current time and cutting anything else in ADF is not worth it.

MBT's especially. Most who have issues with them, don't truly understand the capability they bring to a fight.

If we go along, contributing niches forces to battles and not even attempting to maintain a capability to fight a war then true, we don't need an MBT. But then we don't need a carrier either. We could probably get away with only 2 fighter squadrons and a whole host of reduced capability, just like NZ if we only want to contribute in a small way.

If OTOH we expect to conduct close combat operations even against a "light" force (equivalent to Viet Cong elements) then we need an MBT. Pure and simple. However this is not the thread for discussing that. It is the thread for dreamng about RAN carriers, no matter how unrealistic...

 

[RubiconNZ]

Staying with the hypothetical Fleet Air Issues aside (big aside)
if we assumed their was a Fleet Air Arm that had the ability to put 8-10 aircraft on a carrier.

If a third Canberra Class was purchased the Perth how interchangeable would the Air Arm be could the Carrier role between the other two ships in the class. Obviously this would not be performed on a whim but could it be done as part of the ships availability schedule.

Could the full aircrew just rotate onto the ship, has any modification to the Canberra's been made to prohibit this?

 

[Volkodav]

I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't have replaced the Leopards, rather I was using it as an example of the rhetoric that is trotted out by vested interests to undermine any attempt to replace or acquire capable but expensive equipment. IMO its rarely a case of anyone holding an honest belief that a capability is a complete waste or even so inappropriate that it is dangerous, as some of their statements may suggest, rather their motive is to secure funding for their our pet project.

Unfortunately when the people spouting this stuff are listened to we start seeing high end capabilities disappearing, capabilities that save soldiers lives in the real world. What I’m talking about is the sort of stuff that although we don’t use it very often when we need it nothing else will do and not having it will cost lives and could well result in mission failure, or the decision to not even attempt the mission.

The end result more often than not is the expensive project is axed but the money is rarely if ever rolled into the pet project of the knockers, everyone, the troops on the ground in particular, misses out.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't have replaced the Leopards, rather I was using it as an example of the rhetoric that is trotted out by vested interests to undermine any attempt to replace or acquire capable but expensive equipment. IMO its rarely a case of anyone holding an honest belief that a capability is a complete waste or even so inappropriate that it is dangerous, as some of their statements may suggest, rather their motive is to secure funding for their our pet project.

although its not so bad. eg fatships was a joint selection, all were in not just navy

but, as an example within a service you get some who want nukes, some who want fleet, others who are happy with ASC, some who want to go straight to the germans and bypass ASC altogther, then there are the tango bravo advocates, the littorals advocates and then there are those who detest subs as they see them as elitist unnecessary options. Funnily enough I see the same thing attitudes with regs and specials.

Unfortunately when the people spouting this stuff are listened to we start seeing high end capabilities disappearing, capabilities that save soldiers lives in the real world. What I’m talking about is the sort of stuff that although we don’t use it very often when we need it nothing else will do and not having it will cost lives and could well result in mission failure, or the decision to not even attempt the mission.

my favourite out of touch expert is MajGen Stretton

The end result more often than not is the expensive project is axed but the money is rarely if ever rolled into the pet project of the knockers, everyone, the troops on the ground in particular, misses out.

the other scenario is that the service is so desperate to get that widget in that they don't see it derailing and persist past the tipping point of reasonable recovery. there's a;so the fear factor that if their project gets tagged then their chances of getting other stuff over the line will take a hit. as well.

 

[t68]

What would be the difference for the RAAF having to providing CAP,CAS, ISR and so forth from a land base to take top cover for the RAN to one which is on hand 24/7 whenever at sea when the carrier is operational?

In the case of a RAAF, a fast jet Squadron to deploy with no lead time how long would it take for an overseas deployment, how stretched would the RAAF be? it will also need resources to deploy from scratch other equipment such as, POL, spare parts, munitions, fire fighting equipment and quite possibly a Squadron of Airfield Defence Guards plus there equipment .Admittedly the carrier could take awhile to reach a point where it could conduct operation’s deemed necessary but will have the advantage of having all its resource close at hand in regards to POL spares parts munitions fire fighting its self supporting.

A bare bones capability in 10 years time which would be the earliest the RAN could get a Queen Elizabeth class(if RN sold the second carrier) consisting of 6 EA-18 Growler(wiring already in place) plus 12 F/A18F Super hornets and not to mention NH90(if it wins tender) for ASW,SAR,VERTREP,MEDEVAC..With a 70/30 split of F35 between A/C models it will give RAAF more aircraft to rotate aboard the carrier with a base of EA-18 Growler with the 100 F35 to be ordered plus the 24 F/A18F pilots more variety of employment prospects for retention with the RAAF.

RAF in the future will have a split of Typhoon and F35C admittedly the RAF will still have greater number of aircraft and will provide aircraft for the carrier(s), and the will have the flexibility of aircraft the will truly be multi-role able to do a mixture of operations from land or sea.

 

[Volkodav]

my favourite out of touch expert is MajGen Stretton

He still alive, he retired shortly after Tracy and is a similar vintage to my dear departed grandfather.

My dad worked with him in the aftermath of Tracy and had a pretty high opinion of him but I don't know what he is saying on the strategy from these days?

 

[SteelTiger 177]

I f the RAN did decide to operate fixed-winged fighters at sea would the pilots be RAAF or RAN?

 

[aussienscale]

I f the RAN did decide to operate fixed-winged fighters at sea would the pilots be RAAF or RAN?

Speaking hypothetically (and being ex RAN) would love to see the FAA with Navy pilots do this but realistically if such a thing was to happen the smart thing would be RAAF pilots, Air Control & Maint. You would make the Carrier a purple assett, or would that be pink without the Army

P.S. Have a read back through the thread, this has been discussed at lenght with some pretty in depth responses

 

[gf0012-aust]

My dad worked with him in the aftermath of Tracy and had a pretty high opinion of him but I don't know what he is saying on the strategy from these days?

Unfort he's turned into one of those ex uniform commentators that gets regularly trotted out whenever new gear is acquired.

He's a DOA advocate, and IMO has limited appreciation of how much impact systems and ewarfare contemp concepts have altered things.

he did an exceptional job after Tracy, and certainly all my family from the NT regard him highly. That service performed is not always a transferable capability or skill

 

[StingrayOZ]

Staying with the hypothetical Fleet Air Issues aside (big aside)
if we assumed their was a Fleet Air Arm that had the ability to put 8-10 aircraft on a carrier.

If a third Canberra Class was purchased the Perth how interchangeable would the Air Arm be could the Carrier role between the other two ships in the class. Obviously this would not be performed on a whim but could it be done as part of the ships availability schedule.

Could the full aircrew just rotate onto the ship, has any modification to the Canberra's been made to prohibit this?

Are you talking about 3 ships and rotating the carrier role between them? The Canberras are good ships, but they won't make good carriers. In an emergency temporary situation they could land and launch a few F-35B's. They have limited fuel bunkerage, a few days of limited operations, without dedicated service areas etc.You could modify them, containered mainentence (or atleast diagnostics), perhaps some additional fuel storage (although you would still need a fleet oiler nearby). The more you modify the less flexable your ships and role shifting becomes...

If there arose an urgent need for Australia to get a carrier with in a tiny time frame (with no QE avalible), a 3rd canberra could be built (or another LHD to perform only amphib, while the 2 LHD share the carrier role) to provide additional amphibious/carrier capability and perhaps 16-24 F-35B to provide some sort of coverage, but its not something you would seek in peace time with no direct threat.

If you wanted a carrier, and the QE came avalible she would be the one to get. She is one very capable ship, particular if holding SH/growlers and F-35C's.

If China became particular agressive, it might be that other countries would keep the hell out of it. particularly if China could threaten them. If Chinese aircraft (land based) were hassling our fleet (navy and commerical) at every turn, and we were already conducting amphibious or simular operations and committed to our eye balls, possibly against a rather capable foe.

Its unlikely that domestic and international issue would rise up to cause that but its not impossible. Its not the only situation either. K-rudd really did/does belive in the chinese threat to Australia and the region as a whole, and that is an area he proberly would know a few things about it.

At that point a couple of F-35B's on a LHD aren't going to cut it. We would then have a serious issue of Chinese subs hunting our carrier.

But if we go down that road is a QE what we get first? a 4th Awd? Subs? Land based Aircraft and infrastructure? What about better equipment for those on the ground..

 

[RubiconNZ]

Are you talking about 3 ships and rotating the carrier role between them? The Canberras are good ships, but they won't make good carriers. In an emergency temporary situation they could land and launch a few F-35B's. They have limited fuel bunkerage, a few days of limited operations, without dedicated service areas etc.You could modify them, containered mainentence (or at least diagnostics), perhaps some additional fuel storage (although you would still need a fleet oiler nearby). The more you modify the less flexable your ships and role shifting becomes...

Without meaning to sound flippant the Spanish Navy seem to think otherwise in the operation of the Juan Carlos.

Containerized maintenance is right at the heart of my question that is the question how much modification would it require. As the light vehicle deck is sleighted to provide further storage capability for the embarked air arm, this I presume would mean room without structural alteration for the the embarked airwing.

Any Task force deployment would I imagine include a Oiler.

The more you modify the less flexable your ships and role shifting becomes...

Again that's the point the 3rd Canberra would be much more valuable in my variance of the hypothetical if it required no modification and with the variation being what was embarked.

If there arose an urgent need for Australia to get a carrier with in a tiny time frame (with no QE avalible), a 3rd canberra could be built (or another LHD to perform only amphib, while the 2 LHD share the carrier role) to provide additional amphibious/carrier capability and perhaps 16-24 F-35B to provide some sort of coverage, but its not something you would seek in peace time with no direct threat.

Fair enough Now Wikipedia has it (taking it with a grain of salt) That in Carrier mode 30 aircraft can be carried I imagine that would be in the transport rather than air op mode. If this was near the figure though with a 12 JSF's and 6 Helos this provides for task group air cover, light ground support etc, similar to the role played by the LHA's in the USN. If the 1/2 dozen fixed wing are of value to a MEU, I imagine they would be of value to a deployed ADF task group group. This limited carrier support seems to be suitable for all but the largest of the world navies.

If you wanted a carrier, and the QE came avalible she would be the one to get. She is one very capable ship, particular if holding SH/growlers and F-35C's.

Absolutely the QE class would be a fantastic vessel but if we were taking away the issue of cost why not two if we were to seriously get into the carrier game. I'm sure the Brits would be more than happy to build them for us.

There is a tremendous difference between operating a 65,000 T Fleet Carrier with full CATOBAR in a orphan class, which would of course provide enormous capabilities or a third of class Strategic Projection ship which would add to the hull availability and provide a limited organic fixed wing capability. This would be done at a much lower cost than a Fleet carrier and provides the flexibility of a third multi role vessel. This is not for independent Carrier operations but deployed group support. Or heck make it a Helo Carrier 18 helicopters it still keeps the premise the same.

But if we go down that road is a QE what we get first? a 4th Awd? Subs? Land based Aircraft and infrastructure? What about better equipment for those on the ground..

Sticking with the hypothetical purchase, I would see a 3rd Canberra much more likely than a full carrier and more likely given the thought and equipping the Canberra's has been suggested for the ADF, I haven't heard the call for a fleet carrier recently.

However there is no argument from me that it is not a spending priority.
I am no way advocating this or recommending this it has certainly be highlighted multiple times that this is in no way planned in current or future ADF doctrine or spending plans. But it is interesting to pose questions discussing the path the ADF may choose to deal with future eventualities. I imagine a 3rd Canberra would come behind a 4th AWD, additional ARH's, SPG's, Ground based air defense etc...

 

[swerve]

Without meaning to sound flippant the Spanish Navy seem to think otherwise in the operation of the Juan Carlos.
.

Yes, but they plan to do it by putting her into port for a while, installing additional containerised facilities in the vehicle deck (including aviation fuel tanks, I think), & temporarily sealing the stern gate. She'd then function as a dedicated auxiliary aircraft carrier.

I don't know how long the role swap conversion is scheduled to take, but I get the impression it's more than a day or two.

 

[SASWanabe]

does anyone know how much aviation fuel the canberra's can carry? i have been doing some reasearch on JC1 but all i have found is someone saying it only carrys 900 cu meters (900000l) that doesn't seem right too me, can anyone confirm?

 

[aussienscale]

does anyone know how much aviation fuel the canberra's can carry? i have been doing some reasearch on JC1 but all i have found is someone saying it only carrys 900 cu meters (900000l) that doesn't seem right too me, can anyone confirm?

The current public listed capacity of the JC1/Canberra Class is 900T of aviation fuel not cubes

Compare that to a Wasp which carries over 460,000 Gallons of JP5 and you get an idea of the difference

 

[Sea Toby]

The current public listed capacity of the JC1/Canberra Class is 900T of aviation fuel not cubes

Compare that to a Wasp which carries over 460,000 Gallons of JP5 and you get an idea of the difference

I believe the conversion is one cubic meter for one tonne... The Wasp carries 1200 US tons, and a Newport carries 250 US tons... The new LHA America is to have more aviation fuel than the Wasp, not sure how much...

So if a Canberra carries 900 tonnes, she carries about three fourths of a Wasp in aviation fuel...

If the US wants more aviation fuel capacity with the new America class LHAs, one should assume more is needed for F-35B flight operations... Keep in mind a Nimitz class carrier carries almost 15000 US tons of aviation fuel...

Note that US tons are a bit different in volume than metric tonnes, but not by much...

 

[SASWanabe]

The current public listed capacity of the JC1/Canberra Class is 900T of aviation fuel not cubes

Compare that to a Wasp which carries over 460,000 Gallons of JP5 and you get an idea of the difference

it all works out to about the same amount...

i guess thats what you get when the bottom of the ship is filled with air rather than fuel.

i think a better comparison would be Canberra-Cavour same displacement but cavour carrys nearly twice the fuel.

guess thats the comparison

JC1 = Amphib that is sometimes an aircraft carrier
Cavour = aircraft carrier that moonlights as a transport

edit: toby beat me to it

 

[aussienscale]

Yes and no, it all depends on what they are using as the measure for the tonnage ? IE most liquid volumes in the commercial world are worked out on water capacity of a given space in either cubic volume or ton/tonnes etc, my assumption would be that a direct quote for JP5 would be related to that specific products weight/density ? as an example water is (give or take) 1kg per litre, JP5 on the other hand is about 20% less IIRC, not a big thing but makes a noticable difference when you are talking about these types of volumes

 

[SASWanabe]

just to put them all too the same scale

in Gallons:

Nimitz Class - 3,500,000
QE/PA2 - 1,320,000
Clemenceau - 790,000
Wasp - 460,000
Cavour - ~395,000
Invincible - 250,000
JC1/Canberra - 240,000
Melbourne - 146,000

Their Replenishers (Total Liquids, aviation fuel in brackets)
Supply - 4,585,000 (2,620,000)
Wave - 3,960,000 (790,000)
Henry J Kaiser - 5,638,000, double hull - 5,008,500
Fort Victoria - 3,302,000
Aegir 18R - 3,645,000 (475,500)
Aegir 26 - 6,340,000

those all sound about right to me, the America class should be interesting, without the well deck there will be much more fuel space

Edit: added in Melbourne, it should be good for comparison, thanks

 

[Sea Toby]

From this link the former Melbourne had 146000 gallons of jet fuel, as noted above the Canberra will have 240000 gallons:

Rebuilding the Royal Navy: warship ... - Google Books