Does Australia need an aircraft carrier?

[Sea Toby]

If the United States were going to sell any away at a rock bottom price, the Latin American navies could use them the most. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Peru. Not so much as an attack carrier, or as an amphibious assault ship, but for their many humanitarian missions. Tarawa class LHAs are wnderful ships for peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance. Furthermore, America still has four left.

Why would America sell them for a rock bottom price to any European nation when the Latin Amerian nations have much more need for the vessels?

 

[bd popeye]

Does Austraila ned an aircraft carrier?

Sea Toby sez;

Tarawa class LHAs are wnderful ships for peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance. Furthermore, America still has four left

And Wasp class as well...Many nations would love to have just one of these ships..just one. But as we all know the cost is prohibitive...

Imangine if you will if the PLAN had just one LHA/LHD for use during the Tusnami in Dec 2004?.They could have given some much needed assistance to their Asian neighbors. But..Nope they had none. They could not even send a single LST with a couple of helos...

 

[contedicavour]

If the United States were going to sell any away at a rock bottom price, the Latin American navies could use them the most. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Peru. Not so much as an attack carrier, or as an amphibious assault ship, but for their many humanitarian missions. Tarawa class LHAs are wnderful ships for peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance. Furthermore, America still has four left.

Why would America sell them for a rock bottom price to any European nation when the Latin Amerian nations have much more need for the vessels?

Well it depends what sort of help the US may want from its more or less Allied countries. If the US wants another country to send a regiment of Marines to somewhere (most likely Middle East), in order not to have to send its own Marines (or in order to send less), then it would make more sense to give a Tarawa to Italy (or other NATO country) rather than to a Latin American country who, for political and economic reasons, wouldn't want to participate.
If what you have in mind is a repeat of the Haiti peacekeeping operations in 1994, well then ok. The Tarawa would be used as a sort of transport ship. But wouldn't it be a bit wasted in that role ?

cheers

 

[abramsteve]

Ive just had a quick read of the thread on the Japanese Helo 'destroyers'. They look impressive and wonder if there is any chance they might be looked at as an option for our LHD?

 

[swerve]

Ive just had a quick read of the thread on the Japanese Helo 'destroyers'. They look impressive and wonder if there is any chance they might be looked at as an option for our LHD?

But you want an amphibious ship. 16DDH is only slightly smaller than a Mistral, but has a battery of VLS cells taking up space, a big bow sonar, a lack of cargo capacity or troop accomodation, larger & thirstier engines taking up space & weight & (crucially) no dock. It really is a different type of ship. One can argue about whether it's a light carrier with a destroyers weaponry, or a destroyer (or cruiser) with a big hangar & helicopter deck, but it most certainly isn't built for amphibious warfare.

 

[icelord]

But you want an amphibious ship. 16DDH is only slightly smaller than a Mistral, but has a battery of VLS cells taking up space, a big bow sonar, a lack of cargo capacity or troop accomodation, larger & thirstier engines taking up space & weight & (crucially) no dock. It really is a different type of ship. One can argue about whether it's a light carrier with a destroyers weaponry, or a destroyer (or cruiser) with a big hangar & helicopter deck, but it most certainly isn't built for amphibious warfare.

I'm gunna have to back up swerve on this one, the japanese destroyer/LHD is a small, tiny little thing compared to what the RAN wants, besides the fact it comes no where near the requirments of the tender, cept of course price wise. The requirment under JP 2048 is a LHD that can land a battlegroup sized landing force. Also the two under consideration, the Mistral and Navantina are being proposed by the two biggest defence contractors in Australia Tenix and ADI, along with partnering the worlds 2 major defence companies, Thales and Navantina. Quite simply, they offer bigger better goods with a larger network of support and ability, there is no competition, thats why these two are the only contenders.

The DDH has as mentioned, no room for cargo, crew of extra helos, armour or much else. There is no major operating theartre as on the other two bids, and hardly any command and control ability, as required under JP 2048

 

[abramsteve]

But you want an amphibious ship. 16DDH is only slightly smaller than a Mistral, but has a battery of VLS cells taking up space, a big bow sonar, a lack of cargo capacity or troop accomodation, larger & thirstier engines taking up space & weight & (crucially) no dock. It really is a different type of ship. One can argue about whether it's a light carrier with a destroyers weaponry, or a destroyer (or cruiser) with a big hangar & helicopter deck, but it most certainly isn't built for amphibious warfare.

Excellent point/s mate! I didnt think of that at all! I think because I find the Mistral to be a repulsive looking ship I jumped at the DDH based on its looks!

 

[icelord]

Excellent point/s mate! I didnt think of that at all! I think because I find the Mistral to be a repulsive looking ship I jumped at the DDH based on its looks!

repulsive, really? hmm, never thought of it that way, its not beautiful, i'll admit that, but it looks alot better then the 2nd hand manoora and kanimbla, and just like both its a workhorse, and it will need to be if it wants to cover the role those 2 ships have done, i don't think they'd be able to cover the slippers let alone the boots of the Kanimbla and Manoora, but by god they'll try if we have anything to say about it

 

[swerve]

I'm gunna have to back up swerve on this one, the japanese destroyer/LHD is a small, tiny little thing compared to what the RAN wants, besides the fact it comes no where near the requirments of the tender, cept of course price wise. The requirment under JP 2048 is a LHD that can land a battlegroup sized landing force. Also the two under consideration, the Mistral and Navantina are being proposed by the two biggest defence contractors in Australia Tenix and ADI, along with partnering the worlds 2 major defence companies, Thales and Navantina. Quite simply, they offer bigger better goods with a larger network of support and ability, there is no competition, thats why these two are the only contenders.

The DDH has as mentioned, no room for cargo, crew of extra helos, armour or much else. There is no major operating theartre as on the other two bids, and hardly any command and control ability, as required under JP 2048

Thanks for the backup, but I'm going to have to quibble over a few points. It's smaller than Mistral, but not tiny compared to it - only 5 metres shorter (though the cut-off bow of the French LHDs means the effective difference is more). About 80% of the tonnage. But that does make it undersized for the requirement. The command & control ability is one of the two features (the other one being helicopter ops) in which it might be close to the requirement, as it's intended to be a flagship. And its hangar has room for at least twice as many helicopters as the official complement of 4, & perhaps more, supposedly to enable it to support helicopter operations from accompanying ships. This actually makes sense, since the Kongo & Hatakaze destroyers, & Abukuma light frigates (a total of 12 ships), have helicopter decks but no hangars.

 

[icelord]

Thanks for the backup, but I'm going to have to quibble over a few points. It's smaller than Mistral, but not tiny compared to it - only 5 metres shorter (though the cut-off bow of the French LHDs means the effective difference is more)..

yeah, don't forget that they have allowed the option of an extra...wait for it, 20m.....4
As you picked on me on the other topic about, its not an LHD, so...no means no, we can't have it, its not good for us.
Theres still no room for what we want, we want troops on board as well, other wise its a floating white elephant....interesting sight

 

[Sea Toby]

Don't forget the beam when discussing size of a ship, a larger beam along the length of a ship can make a big difference in displacement. Its amazing how much 5 meters of more beam can increase the displacement.

The new Japanese destroyer flat top doesn't have a vehicle deck and well dock, items which Australia required. The new Italian large flat top doesn't have a well dock, therefore, it didn't meet Australian requirements either. Currently the only two ships which meet the Australian requirements are being considered, the Spanish and French LHD designs.

 

[abramsteve]

repulsive, really? hmm, never thought of it that way, its not beautiful, i'll admit that, but it looks alot better then the 2nd hand manoora and kanimbla, and just like both its a workhorse, and it will need to be if it wants to cover the role those 2 ships have done, i don't think they'd be able to cover the slippers let alone the boots of the Kanimbla and Manoora, but by god they'll try if we have anything to say about it

I guess we have different tastes as I dont mind the Kanimbla and the Manoora!

Im gonna have to attack my own suggestion by full agreeing with you and swerve. It doesnt meet all of our requirments, especially with regards to troop lift.
Just a shame on the astetics side of things!

 

[icelord]

I guess we have different tastes as I dont mind the Kanimbla and the Manoora!

Im gonna have to attack my own suggestion by full agreeing with you and swerve. It doesnt meet all of our requirments, especially with regards to troop lift.
Just a shame on the astetics side of things!

hmm, guess its just the whole debacle over buying 2nd hand rusty US mothballs and giving them to the navy and saying, "here ya go, we'll see ya when u need some new missiles, and hows those new subs coming along."
Our Navy deserves the best, they're in some way 2nd fiddle to the diggers, but they do a damn good job, but when i'm in the RAN, i'll do a bloody good job even if i get a NZ navy boat, this being a tinny with a pistol mountednfloorl:

 

[swerve]

yeah, don't forget that they have allowed the option of an extra...wait for it, 20m.....4
As you picked on me on the other topic about, its not an LHD, so...no means no, we can't have it, its not good for us.
Theres still no room for what we want, we want troops on board as well, other wise its a floating white elephant....interesting sight

20 metres extra on the Mistral? Interesting. I didn't know that. Ta. That's another 10%. Keep the beam the same, & it goes up to about 24000 tonnes. Should be more than 10% more usable space, as well.

I didn't mean to pick on you, just trying to keep things straight.

 

[contedicavour]

20 metres extra on the Mistral? Interesting. I didn't know that. Ta. That's another 10%. Keep the beam the same, & it goes up to about 24000 tonnes. Should be more than 10% more usable space, as well.

I didn't mean to pick on you, just trying to keep things straight.

I didn't know either that the Mistrals existed in an "extended" version. Do you have any design/artist's impression ?
I would still opt for an adaptation of the BPS design, larger and easily equipped with ski jump for potential F35B flight operations.

cheers

 

[abramsteve]

hmm, guess its just the whole debacle over buying 2nd hand rusty US mothballs and giving them to the navy and saying, "here ya go, we'll see ya when u need some new missiles, and hows those new subs coming along."
Our Navy deserves the best, they're in some way 2nd fiddle to the diggers, but they do a damn good job, but when i'm in the RAN, i'll do a bloody good job even if i get a NZ navy boat, this being a tinny with a pistol mountednfloorl:

No arguments there mate! None at all. Australia deserves only the best!

More space is important, but not if it reduces flexability. The Navantia design seems to offer that flexability, with out limitations on space. That would be my choice of design, but would be interested in discussing the pros and cons...

 

[icelord]

I didn't know either that the Mistrals existed in an "extended" version. Do you have any design/artist's impression ?
I would still opt for an adaptation of the BPS design, larger and easily equipped with ski jump for potential F35B flight operations.

cheers

To meet JP 2048 requirments, they would have to be...we want the bigger ones As for designs, i got nothing. I'm just going off the info i'm finding. This adds a fair bit of volume, and the DDH is a little pointy on the bow, so even if it same length, not same volume, so 'not the same boat' little, private aussie joke there...ahem
The BPE is nice and all, but its not tested, and won't be until tenders are selected, so that puts the mistral odds on, and if the BPE was selected, this place would go nuts with speculation about F-35B and ski jumps. As much as i like the spainish, the french might have this one. but then again, i don't know S*it when it comes to DMO, and neither do they:drunk1

 

[Aussie Digger]

To meet JP 2048 requirments, they would have to be...we want the bigger ones As for designs, i got nothing. I'm just going off the info i'm finding. This adds a fair bit of volume, and the DDH is a little pointy on the bow, so even if it same length, not same volume, so 'not the same boat' little, private aussie joke there...ahem
The BPE is nice and all, but its not tested, and won't be until tenders are selected, so that puts the mistral odds on, and if the BPE was selected, this place would go nuts with speculation about F-35B and ski jumps. As much as i like the spainish, the french might have this one. but then again, i don't know S*it when it comes to DMO, and neither do they:drunk1

Kinnaird only says a design has to be "compared" to an off the shelf design (which neither the Mistral supplied for JP 2048 or F-100 supplied for AWD is, but they're close enough) not that ADF has to "select" an off the shelf design.

Rumours are that RAN GREATLY favours the BPE and ADF has been doing very well at getting "what it wants" lately with perhaps the sole exception of MRH-90...

I'd back money on the BPE getting up in this race (but not too much)...

 

[icelord]

Kinnaird only says a design has to be "compared" to an off the shelf design (which neither the Mistral supplied for JP 2048 or F-100 supplied for AWD is, but they're close enough) not that ADF has to "select" an off the shelf design.

Rumours are that RAN GREATLY favours the BPE and ADF has been doing very well at getting "what it wants" lately with perhaps the sole exception of MRH-90...

I'd back money on the BPE getting up in this race (but not too much)...

Hmm, i thought they wanted the MRH-90? Nothing wrong with it, good speed and design, no stigma like the blackhawk, which carries a dark history in Aus.

I'd prefer the BPE, as the other choice is....sigh...:ar15 :france

Anyway, like i said early, if they do go with BPE,u can expect the whoo ha about F-35B to start. The only thing holding back the BPE is that it won't be complete till after the tender has been selected, But by the time that if selected, we complete the LHD, trials would be complete and any issues would be worked out. Kinda like getting the bugs out of a new car.

 

[Markus40]

The Spanish design looks and seems to be a better design. Its also stealthy. The French one is rather chunky and im not sure whether its developed well for the F35. The Spanish one is well catered for the F35 should the Australian Defense forces buy this variant for the RAN. There is no question in my mind that Australia will need to have some CAS capability to strengthen and protect its fleet assets in the future along with assault helicopters and ground teams.

To send assets into a war zone or protracted one requires all elements to be well assisted and covered while on extended duties and over a wide field of operations as such is in the South Pacific.

To meet JP 2048 requirments, they would have to be...we want the bigger ones As for designs, i got nothing. I'm just going off the info i'm finding. This adds a fair bit of volume, and the DDH is a little pointy on the bow, so even if it same length, not same volume, so 'not the same boat' little, private aussie joke there...ahem
The BPE is nice and all, but its not tested, and won't be until tenders are selected, so that puts the mistral odds on, and if the BPE was selected, this place would go nuts with speculation about F-35B and ski jumps. As much as i like the spainish, the french might have this one. but then again, i don't know S*it when it comes to DMO, and neither do they:drunk1