Does Australia need an aircraft carrier?

[long live usa]

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.

i know that australia is a damn good ally and i was simply stating that they need to have the strength to defend a carrier,the only nation i was poking fun at was the cowardly french!!!!

 

[KAPITAIN]

Big E you have blown what i said out of proportion i ment something similar to the wasp concept not the actual wasp.

Take something like the british ocean crew of less than 1000 doesnt cost as much as the wasp's nor have as many crew nor same amount to build even a smaller version could be good for aussieland.

or even something like the albion class LPD just change the super structure.

 

[Big-E]

Big E you have blown what i said out of proportion i ment something similar to the wasp concept not the actual wasp.

So why didn't you go with the already suggested Armaris LHD concept if that fits with what you were saying? If you didn't mean Wasp don't say Wasp, it is a beast unto itself.:

 

[contedicavour]

Wasp

So why didn't you go with the already suggested Armaris LHD concept if that fits with what you were saying? If you didn't mean Wasp don't say Wasp, it is a beast unto itself.:

I agree, the WASP-class is definitively the most powerful and largest LHD. Its sheer size is comparable with the aircraft carrier De Gaulle !

However, with hindsight, if Australia could afford a WASP-class, it would be a wonderful deal with JSF VSTOL and all the imaginable helicopters (SH60 but also up to EH101 and Chinook).

cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

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?

Good points there, as per usual Supe. I'm not convinced of the 3 carrier issue either. The RN and the French Navy are the 2nd and 3rd biggest carrier operators in the world respectively (based on the capability of their carriers) and neither operates 3. France operates 1 and the Brits only have 2, with one "moth-balled" even with the new carriers they are building they will only operate 2 a piece.

My thoughts on this matter are thus: we are buying 2x Amphibious vessels ANYWAY. One design type is designed from scratch to enable the operation of a small number of VSTOL fighters, the other isn't. If we choose the SPS we are going to have to modify the design to get it WITHOUT it's VSTOL operating capability. Given this capability and the fact that RAAF are still looking at options with respect to the F-35.

It "may" be possible that the RAAF could afford to purchase some F-35B's to provide a fair bit of flexibility to it's Air combat fleet. IF we had both, it would a relatively simple an inexpensive way of getting back into the carrier business.

I'm not for 1 second suggesting that RAN/RAAF concentrate on developing a carrier capability at the expense of any other capability. To me, the option of additional subs is hardly "bang for buck" when even 2-3 subs is likely to cost at least $4-5 billion in today's money.

For this sort of money we COULD get a 3rd vessel AND a small F-35B fleet and provide at sea air defence AND strike options for the RAN. This would provide more bag for buck that an extra couple of subs in my opinion, given that it can be used for amphib OR light carrier ops as necessary, versus the relatively narrow role of subs...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Good points there, as per usual Supe. I'm not convinced of the 3 carrier issue either.

The RN and the French Navy are the 2nd and 3rd biggest carrier operators in the world respectively (based on the capability of their carriers) and neither operates 3. France operates 1 and the Brits only have 2, with one "moth-balled" even with the new carriers they are building they will only operate 2 a piece.

the notion of 3 carriers is based on the fact that the RAN was of the notion to run 2 completely separate but autonomous fleets (east and west). They were supposed to be symetrical in capability. if the RAN continues to subscribe to the notion of symetrical fleets, then 3 assets becomes critical if they are to be fully capable even in rotation.

The RN and the French Navy are the 2nd and 3rd biggest carrier operators in the world respectively (based on the capability of their carriers) and neither operates 3. France operates 1 and the Brits only have 2, with one "moth-balled" even with the new carriers they are building they will only operate 2 a piece.

But the RN and FrNavy don't run force design on the same constructs. France is smaller than NSW and has fundamentally 1 broad deepwater coast and one littorals. Force disposition is not symetrical. The Poms basically have a split fleet which is based on atlantic and expeditionary capability - fundamentally split roles which don't require symetrical force either. They also have the advantage of having an expeditionary role and the only permanent RRF Marine based assets under joint jurisdiction with the Dutch.

As for Subs. The cost of the Collins was way out of proportion to their actual value as the contract definition was loose. There is no way in Hades that a large fleet conventional will cost $1bn each in future. In real terms they should be half that price. One would hope that Collins Mk2 will be a lot smarter in contract definition terms. I suspect that it wont be Swedish in origin either.

If Collins Mk2 is still similar in size then I'd project a $600m AUD max price - if we decided to go to a 212 Sized solution (not a good idea IMV) then it would be close to $450-500m AUD.

The prev price break is not a good reference point in contemp proicing terms.

 

[RubiconNZ]

A little out there but...

Why not a pair of DDX's Zummawalt classes instead of a Carrier.
8 Anzacs and 3 AWDS, is not a strong enough capability for our GDP and massive coastline 3 Oceans etc. My reasoning for DDXs, they are more self sufficent than carriers, obviously, The shore support (of DDX) will be unparrelled, crew of around 100, Helo Capability, Land, ASW,AA, etc, perhaps a cheaper variety as maybe the government wouln't fork out my best guesstimate of about 8 billion AU dollars, but in the 2018 time frame there should be possible funds as it will be the tween period for the RAN and around the end of the JSF buy, plus just before the Collins and ANZAC replacement. In terms of capability just imagine a Strike or ASG group, 2 AWDS, 1 DDX, 3 Anzacs, 2x Collins, 2 Amphips. This ability for power projection would rival several other upper rung navies, as well as giving us a forced entry capability which I think we lack.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Why not a pair of DDX's Zummawalt classes instead of a Carrier.
8 Anzacs and 3 AWDS, is not a strong enough capability for our GDP and massive coastline 3 Oceans etc. My reasoning for DDXs, they are more self sufficent than carriers, obviously, The shore support (of DDX) will be unparrelled, crew of around 100, Helo Capability, Land, ASW,AA, etc, perhaps a cheaper variety as maybe the government wouln't fork out my best guesstimate of about 8 billion AU dollars, but in the 2018 time frame there should be possible funds as it will be the tween period for the RAN and around the end of the JSF buy, plus just before the Collins and ANZAC replacement. In terms of capability just imagine a Strike or ASG group, 2 AWDS, 1 DDX, 3 Anzacs, 2x Collins, 2 Amphips. This ability for power projection would rival several other upper rung navies, as well as giving us a forced entry capability which I think we lack.

3x major surface combatants seems like a rather logistical nightmare, for our small fleet, 2x would be best. I'd prefer an additional AWD buy than DD(X) which will cost an absolute fortune.

A fleet of 6 AWD's and 8 ANZAC's would provide the greatest capability numbers wise we've ever had (post WW2). Even the 11 strong fleet planned now provides us with basically as many major surface combatants as we've ever had and ones of far greater capability, comparatively to what we've had in the past.

Another solution would be simply to retain the FFG's until the frigate replacement project ramps up, (sometime around 2020-2025). For any of these options, manning is going to be the issue, as RAN is having trouble manning it's current fleet of 11x surface combatants. The 12x it will rise to when the final ANZAC is commissioned is only going to compound the problem.

A fleet of 14 or 15, seems damned near impossible at present...

Hence my reasoning for the adoption of a light carrier project. No further manning will be required and little extra cost will be incurred beyond the acquisition of the SPS and F-35B series, which may well be chosen anyway.

I know it doesn't exactly fit RAN's intention of a "symmetrical force", but then the future Amphib plan doesn't anyway and our current Amphibs don't either.

It's arguable that we have a symmetrical "East/West" 3x Amphib force now, given the differences between Manoora/Kanimbla and Tobruk and we will in future anyway, with the 2x LHD and 1x Sealift ship.

My idea is not to permanently equip EITHER vessel as a light carrier, but to work up and use the capability if and when required. An example may be an upcoming FPDA exercise. RAAF could deploy to the ships from their land bases, as Joint Force Harriers do in England, practice their works up and head off to the exercise and perform that role for the duration of the exercise. Upon the return, the RAAF returns to it's land bases and the vessels goes back to it's primary role of training for Amphibious ops.

Obviously a certain amount of competency in the role will have to be maintained by RAAF, but I can't see how that couldn't be fitted into the regular exercise schedule.

I just think the opportunity we have now is virtually unique, in that we ARE (most likely) buying a vessel intended from scratch to operate VSTOL fighters AND perform Amphibious warfare operations. We MAY be buying a VSTOL fighter as part of our next generation combat aircraft and it seems a relatively straight forward way of gaining a capability, which would fix a significant hole in RAN's "high end" warfighting capability.

The development of the capability should even prove relatively straight forward with RAN and RAAF personnel able to deploy to England OR the USA, to "learn" from those who already do it. We do this ALL the time, most recently with our AWACS and Abrams tank people. We even have RAAF personnel in the USA "training" on JSF (simulators) already...

At any rate, I'd like to see AMPT's thoughts on this issue...

 

[Aussie Digger]

The request for tender has been officially released today for the 2x LHD vessels that have caused so much discussion today (though apparently the companies involved got it last friday).

This stage of the project is asking for finalised designs, full costings and through life support options.

The winner is to be announced in early 2007.

It's confirmed that a "modified" Mistral is to be entered (to match the capability of the SPS no doubt)...

The full release can be found here:

www.defence.gov.au

I'm thinking the SPS is a pretty fair bet. The Mistral has had to be significantly modified to meet the requirement standard. Apparently SPS DOES match it already... The included VSTOL capability, whether utilised or not, would surely make it the preferred option, everything else being (supposedly) equal...

 

[Supe]

This stage of the project is asking for finalised designs, full costings and through life support options.

The winner is to be announced in early 2007.

It's confirmed that a "modified" Mistral is to be entered (to match the capability of the SPS no doubt)...

A strong point for the SPS bid is that no modification is required...unless the ski jump is deleted.

The SPS is quite a large ship but with small manning requirements. Impressive. Stacks up nicely against a Wasp - at least in service of the RAN. I could almost imagine the Mistral being selected just to stymy the mere thought of the SPS being used as a pocket carrier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Buqueproyeccionestrategica.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buque_de_Proyección_Estratégica

 

[contedicavour]

News on Jane's today

Yep I've read that the tender for the 2 LHDs is now formalized
Well now the name of the game is making sure that the Mistrals will be able to handle JSFs in the hangar and on the flight deck...
They are supposed to handle Chinooks after all, so in terms of space and load at least it should be feasible

I don't know if it'll be of much comfort, but in Italy we've managed to operate (although only on the flight deck and in emergency conditions) 4 harriers from our 8000 ton LPD/LPH San Giusto which is only 135 metres long

cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

The money is on Tenix. I wouldn't get ADI to build a car trailer. Look at HMAS Sydney for a recent example of how they can't deliver a properly managed project.

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, Tenix seems to have the lead, especially considering production, but price is going to be very important too. If Tenix gets the contract the ships will be assembled in Henderson, WA, but many of its modules will probably be built at Williamstown, Victoria.

Cost overruns and long delays in military construction and conversions have been a reality with Australian defence acquisitions. While I would like to see these ships built in Australia, if the price isn't close to European construction, I would easily hand this contract to a European shipbuilder. Even so, I would reserve the fitting out and weapons systems to a local Australian yard.

 

[Brutus Caesar]

As long as any cost overruns are kept within the Australian economy then really I don't think they are that big a deal.

 

[contedicavour]

In case you change your mind about building locally, shipbuilders here in good old europe are more than happy to help
Seriously, if the order is for an almost exact copy of the mistral LPH, it costs less to produce 2 more at the same shipbuilder in France than to set up all that's needed to replicate the model in Australia...

cheers

 

[teashoci]

why are my posts being constantly deleted?


Mod edit: Complaining is of little avail either. Read and play by the rules and they won't get deleted. Cheers.

 

[RubiconNZ]

why?

why are my posts being constantly deleted?

Because in my opinion you seem to make ridculous ill informed statments, now if I think that, then the moderators would prob think even less of you.

 

[abramsteve]

In case you change your mind about building locally, shipbuilders here in good old europe are more than happy to help
Seriously, if the order is for an almost exact copy of the mistral LPH, it costs less to produce 2 more at the same shipbuilder in France than to set up all that's needed to replicate the model in Australia...

cheers

Mate thats true but it depends on the benifts that come with local construction, namely jobs and boosts to state economies. Here in Adelaide its gonna cost millions just to set up the ASC just so they are capable of building the AWDs, but the benifits the state will get from the project are equally enourmous.

 

[contedicavour]

Mate thats true but it depends on the benifts that come with local construction, namely jobs and boosts to state economies. Here in Adelaide its gonna cost millions just to set up the ASC just so they are capable of building the AWDs, but the benifits the state will get from the project are equally enourmous.

Fair enough, but if each country keeps developing and building locally most of its military technology and equipment, then there are too few financial resources available to complete all the required programmes...
Building the ANZACs locally made sense, we were talking 10 ships (with the NZ included). Same for the new patrol ships replacing Fremantle. It is in my opinion much less logic to build locally the LPH or the new DDGs. In exchange for importing the ships, Australian industry could request compensation by joining US or European programmes such as evolution of AEGIS or Standard or ESSM. Would you imagine the Australian industry building components of such radars or missiles ? That's better than assembling components on a locally built platform
cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

As I said before if the price is close they should be built in Australia, if they aren't they should be built abroad. If the difference is $500 million more, than that's too much. $500 million can purchase another frigate, another submarine, up to 100 LAVIIIs, over 10 helicopters, possibly up to 10 Super Hornets. Any of the above is worth more to the Australian Defence Forces than building two LHDs in Australia.

Of course, I would prefer to build the LHDs in Australia, where all of the expenditures end up in Australia instead of somewhere else. Even so, much of the equipment which may be built locally under license will end up as income to foreign corporations anyway.