Does Australia need an aircraft carrier?

[Aussie Digger]

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

We do that as well. We build parts for the ESSM missile for the world wide market, I'm pretty sure. We also build parts for the Kongsberg Penguin missile and export them world wide (insensitive warheads I think).

We also develop the rockets for the Nulka anti-missile decoy system with the US supplying the payload.

 

[RA1911]

We also build parts for the Kongsberg Penguin missile and export them world wide (insensitive warheads I think).

What about parts for the new NSM missile?

 

[Aussie Digger]

What about parts for the new NSM missile?

I've read somewhere that the RAAF is interested in the NSM as a follow-on missile for the Harpoon Block II, but I don't know if we;ve actually signed any agreements to help out with the design, development etc.

AFAIK, it's not in serial productino yet anyway, so any productioin involvement would be moot until then...

 

[Markus40]

Australian Aircraft Carrier.

I was interested to see that there was some debate on whether Australia should opt for a Aircraft carrier. This makes perfect sense considering that India and countries in the South Asia region have them including some European countries. Im not sure but does Brazil still operate a carrier and Argentina?

A carrier similar to a LPD or a British jump jet version like the Ark Royal for the F-35s would give the Australian Navy a huge role in this region of the world and as well project some stabilizing influence. Australia could have two carrier battle groups if they had 2 carriers one based in Sydney and the other in Perth. Escorted by the Anzacs and FFGs and Submarines. The carrier could be built by Tennix and thus provide an economic back hand for employment and have economic benefits. I hardly think the issue of crewing would be a block to operating one as recruitment for the Navy would provide the numbers for operating this type of warship. If NZ can recruit 15% more people to the armed forces over the next few years then this can be easily handled in Australia with a higher population.

I would welcome your feed back.

I've read somewhere that the RAAF is interested in the NSM as a follow-on missile for the Harpoon Block II, but I don't know if we;ve actually signed any agreements to help out with the design, development etc.

AFAIK, it's not in serial productino yet anyway, so any productioin involvement would be moot until then...

 

[Big-E]

Im not sure but does Brazil still operate a carrier and Argentina?

Argentina's carrier was decomed. Brazil replaced hers with the ex-FS Foch.

 

[Sea Toby]

As I write this today the Australians and New Zealanders are sending in another peacekeeping force to East Timor, where the unemployed laid off soldiers have rebelled against their new government. Here is another case of Australia needing sealift and airlift again more than they need a light attack aircraft carrier.

The East Timor government has asked for help from Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, Malaysia, and Singapore. Some of these nations are waiting for outright UN approval before they deploy, which is very likely.

Recently Australia and New Zealand had to move peacekeeping forces into the Solomon Islands to settle the unrest of an election of a Prime Minister by its Parliament.

Fiji has had a few coups in the past decade. Tonga's king is old. Many of these island states' democracies can fail at any time. Typhoons, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions are commonplace.

It appears to me Australia needs more sealift and airlift than they need ski-jumping attack fighter jets, whether Harrier or F-35Bs to outfit a light carrier.

 

[teashoci]

Admin Edit: Comments deleted. I guess you haven't read the forum rules for participation. I suggest you do so.

You have had posts deleted by others before. You don't appear to comprehend what is acceptable posting behaviour on here.

 

[Whiskyjack]

the australian army is the modern day equilevant to the british home guard in the 40s (otherwise known as dads army)

You are obviously someone to watch in the area of strategic and tactical insight.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Blah Blah

the australian army is the modern day equilevant to the british home guard in the 40s (otherwise known as dads army)

No this guy just gets kicks out of making a fool of himself I would say this will be the last one for him, farewell you intelligent specimen of human nature

 

[Markus40]

Australian Carrier.

I was interested to see that there was some debate on whether Australia should opt for a Aircraft carrier. This makes perfect sense considering that India and countries in the South Asia region have them including some European countries. Im not sure but does Brazil still operate a carrier and Argentina?

A carrier similar to a LPD or a British jump jet version like the Ark Royal for the F-35s would give the Australian Navy a huge role in this region of the world and as well project some stabilizing influence. Australia could have two carrier battle groups if they had 2 carriers one based in Sydney and the other in Perth. Escorted by the Anzacs and FFGs, warfare destroyers and Submarines. The carrier could be built by Tennix and thus provide an economic back hand for employment and have economic benefits. I hardly think the issue of crewing would be a block to operating one as recruitment for the Navy would provide the numbers for operating this type of warship. If NZ can recruit 15% more people to the armed forces over the next few years then this can be easily handled in Australia with a higher population.

I would welcome your feed back.

I've read somewhere that the RAAF is interested in the NSM as a follow-on missile for the Harpoon Block II, but I don't know if we;ve actually signed any agreements to help out with the design, development etc.

AFAIK, it's not in serial productino yet anyway, so any productioin involvement would be moot until then...

 

[Markus40]

Re: Sealift for the Australian Navy.

Actually you are right about a lack of Sea lift ability especially when it comes to deploying a mix of air and sea assets all at the same time. However a multi purpose Carrier such as the LPD (a late version of the Iowa Jima class) in the US Navy would do the job perfectly. This would present a mix of F-35s, helicopter support to the troops and supply, ambulance and hospital facilites, and non berth options using landing craft to move Lavs etc. Thats why in a previous message i mentioned that Australia should operate a carrier battle group escorted by FFgs, Anzacs and Submarines.

NZ has finely come to its senses and we now have a MRV that can do most of this work although there are gaping holes in its defensive abilities without a frigate.

As to the question of having F-35s its essential to operate them as an air to ground asset for the troops on the ground and of course for the Australian Navy (CAP). Triad support. From Naval experience its a surety that if a carrier didnt have a strike capability that we have left the troops in the field and the Navy unprotected in forward operations. Much like the NZ airforce, im sorry to say.

As I write this today the Australians and New Zealanders are sending in another peacekeeping force to East Timor, where the unemployed laid off soldiers have rebelled against their new government. Here is another case of Australia needing sealift and airlift again more than they need a light attack aircraft carrier.

The East Timor government has asked for help from Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, Malaysia, and Singapore. Some of these nations are waiting for outright UN approval before they deploy, which is very likely.

Recently Australia and New Zealand had to move peacekeeping forces into the Solomon Islands to settle the unrest of an election of a Prime Minister by its Parliament.

Fiji has had a few coups in the past decade. Tonga's king is old. Many of these island states' democracies can fail at any time. Typhoons, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions are commonplace.

It appears to me Australia needs more sealift and airlift than they need ski-jumping attack fighter jets, whether Harrier or F-35Bs to outfit a light carrier.

 

[Big-E]

From Naval experience its a surety that if a carrier didnt have a strike capability that we have left the troops in the field and the Navy unprotected in forward operations. Much like the NZ airforce, im sorry to say.

What, your not happy with your P-3s? Someone was saying they can carry bombs for CAS.:lol3

 

[Markus40]

Re: RNZAF P-3

What, your not happy with your P-3s? Someone was saying they can carry bombs for CAS.:lol3

I like your humour.! To be proffesional there is some argument that the NZ P3 should be armed with the Harpoon and this be our first line of Defense. ! Of course i was shocked to hear that, as originally NZ purchased the P3 and the A4 together they did alot of interoperations for Maritime warfare. As you may know this government got rid of the A4s and we now dont have a air combat strike force. My argument is that we should try and bring back this air element to protect the Navy and Army in its field of operations, and leave the P3s to Maritime Survellience with a secondary offensive role.

Having some military background i know full well that you need the 3 elements of the armed forces to be able to carry out low level to full scale war on any scale so as to provide our forces the support it needs. We saw this in the Falklands.

NZ government recently did a $500 Million upgrade on the 6 P3s we have to upgrade the flight controls and FLIR and LANTERN and some other detection suites but ESMs and ECMs was never included. So there was no military upgrade included as part of that package. So we have an air force thats like a tiger without teeth, im sorry to say. We desperatly need to have a government that will reinstate our combat wing and have our services running to the needs of our overseas commitments and compatability with the Australians, and the ability to work alongside our allies at a moments notice. This is NOT happening and is embarrssing to say the least. The NZ armed forces is undergoing change for new equipment and the Navy and Army came out it the best with patrol boats, and MRV, OPVs and Anti aircraft and anti armour missiles. So there has been some improvements which is good, but there are still holes in NZs ability to the front line and cutting edge of warfare. If you want more details let me know.

 

[Big-E]

Actually you are right about a lack of Sea lift ability especially when it comes to deploying a mix of air and sea assets all at the same time. However a multi purpose Carrier such as the LPD (a late version of the Iowa Jima class) in the US Navy would do the job perfectly. This would present a mix of F-35s, helicopter support to the troops and supply, ambulance and hospital facilites, and non berth options using landing craft to move Lavs etc. Thats why in a previous message i mentioned that Australia should operate a carrier battle group escorted by FFgs, Anzacs and Submarines.

NZ has finely come to its senses and we now have a MRV that can do most of this work although there are gaping holes in its defensive abilities without a frigate.

As to the question of having F-35s its essential to operate them as an air to ground asset for the troops on the ground and of course for the Australian Navy (CAP). Triad support. From Naval experience its a surety that if a carrier didnt have a strike capability that we have left the troops in the field and the Navy unprotected in forward operations. Much like the NZ airforce, im sorry to say.

I agree whole-heartedly. I think Sea Toby is missing the bigger picture of force protection. If you don't have air dominance all the forces you land are going to be cannon fodder; all your LCs will be at the bottom of the channel. With F-35Bs air dominance is practically gauranteed against any threat AU will face for a long long time. I think sacrificing a little space on an LSD for some F-35Bs is a force multiplyer greater than the sacrifice of manpower and equipment.

 

[contedicavour]

Latest deployment in Timor and the sealift capability

Here it goes again. More fighting again in Timor ... and of course, only Australia has the will and the military assets to deploy and stop the fighting.
Yet another proof that being able to deploy troops fast anywhere in the South Pacific is key.

However, if I may, despite limited defense budgets, it should never come to a either/or issue between LPDs and CVLs. With all the aircraft carriers likely to exist in the next 10 years in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, the Australian Navy should have appropriate assets. I would opt for a 250-metre 30,000 tonner carrier with sky jump for JSFs AND space for LCAC or LCVP aft such as the Tarawa and Wasp. A bit of a CVL and of a LHD

cheers

 

[Markus40]

Re:Australian Aircraft Carrier.

Absolutely. Of course as a result of quick deployment and geo location to East Timor Australia is much closer and can deploy faster. Yes, you are absolutely right and i have been trying to make this point in a previous message that a mix of a CVL and of a LHD would be perfect for this type of operation. I think for the NZers coming up with their MRV is good sense and this seems to have sunk in to military doctrine somewhat. Although holes in our defensive capabilities remain.

Actually for NZ to have good air transport for deploying troops in a area makes good sense too as we are further away, to deploy a frigate and MRV together will take 3-4 days to get to East Timor. Im wondering whether the Australians having gone in on the same day would have had this situation under control and leaving the NZ contingent on the MRV to "mop" up, by the time they arrive. It seems that these types of flare ups are ending in days not weeks. I would be interested in your comments. Also should NZ in your opinion use their P3s as a means of front line defense in maritime operations? And also for CAP armed with Harpoons to protect our Naval assets and Army deployed some place in the pacfic or Asia without air cover? I would welcome your response.


Mod edit: the NZ Naval forum is a better thread for this sort of discussion. I have just posted a length response over there. Let's stick to Australian LHD options and related topics here. Thanks. AD

Here it goes again. More fighting again in Timor ... and of course, only Australia has the will and the military assets to deploy and stop the fighting.
Yet another proof that being able to deploy troops fast anywhere in the South Pacific is key.

However, if I may, despite limited defense budgets, it should never come to a either/or issue between LPDs and CVLs. With all the aircraft carriers likely to exist in the next 10 years in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, the Australian Navy should have appropriate assets. I would opt for a 250-metre 30,000 tonner carrier with sky jump for JSFs AND space for LCAC or LCVP aft such as the Tarawa and Wasp. A bit of a CVL and of a LHD

cheers

 

[alexsa]

Well lets hope the decision is made for the Navantia product in the next few months. More to the point lets hope the ALP then don't cancel it if they get into power.

 

[Pusser01]

Carrying F35B on deck?

Gday All
Long time lurker, first time poster. Noting that most carier forces only carry approximately half their air wing in the hanger, would it be possible for the respective LHD designs to still carry thier designed 12 helos in the hanger while maintaining 6-8 F35B parked on the deck?
I look forward to any comments.
Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

Well anyone certainly can park more aircraft on the flight deck, but is it wise to do so if the design of the ship does not leave enough space for spares and tools in the hangar, or for the berthing spaces of their maintenance and flight crews?

Its been my experience that if you add Harriers and their crews to a LHD you have to take off a number of Helicopers and their crews or a number of army equipment and soldiers, there is a finite amount of space.

Then there could be weight issues. If the LHD is designed with only a few tons of displacement to spare, adding 20 tons of aircraft and another 20 tons of men and spares could sink the ship, surely they could be stability and top weight problems.

 

[Markus40]

Take a look at this web page and you will get a greater understanding of this type of Warship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_(LHD-1)

Well anyone certainly can park more aircraft on the flight deck, but is it wise to do so if the design of the ship does not leave enough space for spares and tools in the hangar, or for the berthing spaces of their maintenance and flight crews?

Its been my experience that if you add Harriers and their crews to a LHD you have to take off a number of Helicopers and their crews or a number of army equipment and soldiers, there is a finite amount of space.

Then there could be weight issues. If the LHD is designed with only a few tons of displacement to spare, adding 20 tons of aircraft and another 20 tons of men and spares could sink the ship, surely they could be stability and top weight problems.