A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[StevoJH]

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.

 

[gf0012-aust]

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.

 

[swerve]

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.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

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.

Directory of Airports in Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)

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.

 

[Sea Toby]

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.

Directory of Airports in Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)

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...

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

I agree. Never advocated a light CV for RAN.

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.

 

[gf0012-aust]

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

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

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.

 

[Sea Toby]

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...

 

[gf0012-aust]

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.

 

[Seaforth]

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...

Not true, the decision was made to avoid escalating the conflict. Any attack on Argentine sovereign land or territorial waters would have been unacceptable to British allies.

 

[StevoJH]

Not true, the decision was made to avoid escalating the conflict. Any attack on Argentine sovereign land or territorial waters would have been unacceptable to British allies.

No.

Located where the carriers spent the war, to the east of the Falkland Islands, the Argentine airforce were operating at the extreme edge of their operating range. As they only had two(?) aircraft capable of refueling aircraft in flight, this limited the number of aircraft they could launch on a strike simultaneously.

If the Carriers had moved within range for a strike on Argentine land based airfields, the number of airframes the Argentines could send out simultaneously would have increased massively. This would have resulted in an increase in risk to the carrier force to levels too high to make the trade off worth it.

 

[t68]

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.

GF, you are the last person on the forum that requires a history lesson nor needs a lecture on the RAN and as such i am not qualified to give one, but historically Australia did at one time have 2 operational carriers albeit briefly and had plan’s of a third and up until the 80’s we had the Melbourne as a stand alone carrier. It was far from a perfect situation with only the one but if Australia where to acquire just one Queen Elizabeth class with a complement of 36 Super Hornet plus 4 AWAC aircraft i believe it would give the government more options than it currently has to offer and would provide a more balanced force structure which the RAN can offer the government options of interventions, one only has to look at the presence a US carrier has when it sit’s off the coast of a potential trouble spot. With any potential type of future carrier that Australia may or may not acquire cost’s will be budget for just like they have been costed for the future F35A buy, StingrayOZ has some interesting scenarios of the add benefit carrier could provide Australia. With the current fiscal challenges the UK are facing they could quite easily move away from having carrier force but quite rightly see the benefits of keeping a carrier force and are accepting the pain of keeping it available on to influence event's that might occur in the future. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.




Looking at the Canberra class if it where to be modified to a light aircraft carrier which would have the same engineering capability as an LHD, modifying it to enlarge the munitions storage and fuel bunkers and no well deck would it be feasible or would it be changing the design too much and not worth the effort.

Another possibility is the Japanese Hyuga class she might take minimal mods to bring to standard as a light carrier; she appears to resemble an invincible class carrier without the ski jump. But it will be the case of how much would have to be modified.

WorldWideAircraftCarriers.com - Hyuga Class Page

Just read an add on at the bottom of the link i gave and the Japanese are planning a larger version of it.heres a photo side by side

http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/22ddh-10.jpg

 

[gf0012-aust]

but historically Australia did at one time have 2 operational carriers albeit briefly and had plan’s of a third and up until the 80’s we had the Melbourne as a stand alone carrier.

My father serverd on HMAS Sydney (CVL) He also was involved in the transfer of HMS Terrible pending HMAS Melbourne

so at one stage we had 3 carriers.

BUT in pre 82 we never had a split fleet (Fleet East, Fleet West) - so we never had the same force balance issues that we need today.

doctrine then was vastly different from todays split fleet and purple requirements

 

[StevoJH]

Beyond the stuff already announced to enter service. The absolute most important thing the RAN needs in my opinion, would be 4 proper replenishment ships, two per coast to give one active on each coast at all times.

 

[t68]

My father serverd on HMAS Sydney (CVL) He also was involved in the transfer of HMS Terrible pending HMAS Melbourne

so at one stage we had 3 carriers.

BUT in pre 82 we never had a split fleet (Fleet East, Fleet West) - so we never had the same force balance issues that we need today.

doctrine then was vastly different from todays split fleet and purple requirements

I knew we loaned HMS Terrible from the UK but was unaware we had the three operating in the fleet at once, my understanding is we had given Terrible back when Melbourne was finished and the crew moved over to the new ship in the UK to sail her back.

Would it work if there where two crews on the carrier to alternate between the fleets if it was available and not in refit or short term maintenances if Australia only bought one?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I knew we loaned HMS Terrible from the UK but was unaware we had the three operating in the fleet at once, my understanding is we had given Terrible back when Melbourne was finished and the crew moved over to the new ship in the UK to sail her back.

Would it work if there where two crews on the carrier to alternate between the fleets if it was available and not in refit or short term maintenances if Australia only bought one?

we had a 9 month transition period...

skeleton crews are just that, we basically couldn't afford to run carriers by 82, so 2 full carriers from 82 on was going to be a pipedream.

the falklands ironically was a blessing for the Oz Govt.

edit added:

in addition both Sydney and Melbourne never ran as concurrent 3rd gen jet fighter carriers. Sydney was tasked for conversion to an angled deck and catapult change but was deemed cost ineffective to do so (hence why the look see at Invincible class) so sydney stayed a troop ship - a nice bit of lateral thinking for the time

so aust never ran proper modern fleet carrier forces concurrently - even though we had 2 carriers.

 

[Seaforth]

No.

Located where the carriers spent the war, to the east of the Falkland Islands, the Argentine airforce were operating at the extreme edge of their operating range. As they only had two(?) aircraft capable of refueling aircraft in flight, this limited the number of aircraft they could launch on a strike simultaneously.

If the Carriers had moved within range for a strike on Argentine land based airfields, the number of airframes the Argentines could send out simultaneously would have increased massively. This would have resulted in an increase in risk to the carrier force to levels too high to make the trade off worth it.

You have missed the point completely. Strikes of any kind were against Argentina were impossible for political reasons. The focus was the Falklands and that resulted in the fleet disposition.

Note that one carrier moved far to the west in support of special forces recon missions on the mainland.

 

[Sea Toby]

You have missed the point completely. Strikes of any kind were against Argentina were impossible for political reasons. The focus was the Falklands and that resulted in the fleet disposition.

Note that one carrier moved far to the west in support of special forces recon missions on the mainland.

True, but you missed the important point that the British never had the confidence to bring their light carriers close to the Argentine coast to engage the Argie air force? If the British chose not to why would Australia?

If the Argies had been able to mount jet fighter aircraft from the Falklands themselves, would the British have brought their light carriers as close to the Falklands?

The real truth is a light carrier isn't a large super carrier... A score of jet fighter aircraft isn't a hundred jet fighter aircraft... 20 won't beat 100 anywhere, any day...

 

[1805]

True, but you missed the important point that the British never had the confidence to bring their light carriers close to the Argentine coast to engage the Argie air force? If the British chose not to why would Australia?

If the Argies had been able to mount jet fighter aircraft from the Falklands themselves, would the British have brought their light carriers as close to the Falklands?

The real truth is a light carrier isn't a large super carrier... A score of jet fighter aircraft isn't a hundred jet fighter aircraft... 20 won't beat 100 anywhere, any day...

I think it is a combination of the two. I don't think either the UK or Argentina had any desire to see the conflict escalate. Equally why risk the light carriers when you don't have to. Also it was not the small size that restricted the RN to 20 Harriers, they just didn't have the airframes in the early part of the war. Post war the addition of AEW & BVR missiles transformed the light carriers capability, it is very sad the RN foolishly chose not to build the FA2 around the AV8B....we might still have fighter cover!

As for the Argentinians stationing jets on the Falklands, they would have been better off taking every Exocet off their warships, where they added no value (to either navy) and mounted them on mobile trucks.