When James Cook anchored off Doubtful Sound - 9 miles offshore, he was awakened by the dawn chorus of NZ birdlife.
Introduced predators have decimated that population.
A very sad legacy of colonialism
MB
Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD
- Thread starter BOFORS
- Start date
- Status
Introduced predators have decimated that population.
A very sad legacy of colonialism
MB
From the RAN thread to here.
Trieste for example is likely to be able to operate 20+ F-35B's at a fairly high tempo.
As for our existing LHD's the obvious thing would be to wait for normal upgrades/refits and perform upgrades then, again, you are going to be modifying and replacing systems, equipment and surfaces anyway, so doing so with F-35 compatible upgrades would seem to be very cheap and a no brainer. The $500m cost is pure speculation and further dramatised by an unrealistic do it immediately case. Not a more realistic, accounted, itemised cost on upgrades when refitting.
No small carrier is reasonably going to be asked for 24/7/365 CAP. Even a Ford class carrier has its limits too, which is why the US is preferring operating in pairs, simply moving the goal posts to the impossible is not a sensible argument. The 24hr presence is from land based P8's and E7's and from the surface combatants which are much better for that type of mission. Which can be armed themselves, with long range (Harpoon, JSM/NSM/SM-6/LRASM/Tomahawk) munitions, and which can remotely target and launch missiles from ships, by themselves (CEC) hundreds of km out of harms way. F-35's can then be in a ready state or conduct patrols on an adhoc basis, or deter threats coming after the P8/E7's and provide local sea control capability etc. We are talking about enhancing and protecting capability we already have.
No one is sensibly envisaging using small carriers to engage offensively Chinese aircraft from mainland airfields just off the coast of China. Just because you are looking at enhancing capability doesn't mean you are then going to do an invasion of mainland China (or the Moon, or whatever). These are non sequitur arguments from detractors.
But deterring long range missions from SCS islands, based off bombers or surveillance or patrol craft, yes, allowing us to push them right back out of our space. Enhancing fleet protection at a distance without US carrier power? Yes. Being able to lead a full spectrum mission with all the key elements, yes. Training with other regional assets and allies, yes.
Very sceptical of additional Destroyers and Frigates (although the mix of these could be changed). That really isn't doable for decades. What we have is what we have. We can however upgrade and up-gun, but whole new additional numbers of surface combatants is highly unlikely, particularly in addition to a new LHD. However, that new LHD could very well have combat capable radar and some VLS if you wished, to better be able to support an inner bubble as part of a more spaced out/reduced escort formation.
Roll in further upgrades in the future if they are required of the LHD's, and you have a one off cost, no/tiny increase in man power, and a huge capability boost. You also have a less fragile amphibious capability which hasn't been compromised, but has in fact been enhanced.
There is now clearly a carrier vacuum developing in S.E.A. IMO Australia is probably the best or only country positioned to fill it. At some point there is more risk not getting that capability and doing it well than leaving it vacant.
A third aviation enhanced LHD is I think plausible, and would mean greater amphibious capability (which we need), greater naval aviation capability (both fixed, rotary and UAV). A third LHD wouldn't have to have the limitations of our current LHD's built in, you could include all the F-35 enhancements for very economical costs.
Trieste for example is likely to be able to operate 20+ F-35B's at a fairly high tempo.
As for our existing LHD's the obvious thing would be to wait for normal upgrades/refits and perform upgrades then, again, you are going to be modifying and replacing systems, equipment and surfaces anyway, so doing so with F-35 compatible upgrades would seem to be very cheap and a no brainer. The $500m cost is pure speculation and further dramatised by an unrealistic do it immediately case. Not a more realistic, accounted, itemised cost on upgrades when refitting.
No small carrier is reasonably going to be asked for 24/7/365 CAP. Even a Ford class carrier has its limits too, which is why the US is preferring operating in pairs, simply moving the goal posts to the impossible is not a sensible argument. The 24hr presence is from land based P8's and E7's and from the surface combatants which are much better for that type of mission. Which can be armed themselves, with long range (Harpoon, JSM/NSM/SM-6/LRASM/Tomahawk) munitions, and which can remotely target and launch missiles from ships, by themselves (CEC) hundreds of km out of harms way. F-35's can then be in a ready state or conduct patrols on an adhoc basis, or deter threats coming after the P8/E7's and provide local sea control capability etc. We are talking about enhancing and protecting capability we already have.
No one is sensibly envisaging using small carriers to engage offensively Chinese aircraft from mainland airfields just off the coast of China. Just because you are looking at enhancing capability doesn't mean you are then going to do an invasion of mainland China (or the Moon, or whatever). These are non sequitur arguments from detractors.
But deterring long range missions from SCS islands, based off bombers or surveillance or patrol craft, yes, allowing us to push them right back out of our space. Enhancing fleet protection at a distance without US carrier power? Yes. Being able to lead a full spectrum mission with all the key elements, yes. Training with other regional assets and allies, yes.
Very sceptical of additional Destroyers and Frigates (although the mix of these could be changed). That really isn't doable for decades. What we have is what we have. We can however upgrade and up-gun, but whole new additional numbers of surface combatants is highly unlikely, particularly in addition to a new LHD. However, that new LHD could very well have combat capable radar and some VLS if you wished, to better be able to support an inner bubble as part of a more spaced out/reduced escort formation.
Roll in further upgrades in the future if they are required of the LHD's, and you have a one off cost, no/tiny increase in man power, and a huge capability boost. You also have a less fragile amphibious capability which hasn't been compromised, but has in fact been enhanced.
There is now clearly a carrier vacuum developing in S.E.A. IMO Australia is probably the best or only country positioned to fill it. At some point there is more risk not getting that capability and doing it well than leaving it vacant.
t68
Well-Known Member
As I said in the RN thread, post Brexit might mean a bargain or two coming up, I just can’t see the UK keeping both CV if it turn too messy.
Whilst most likely would more expensive than a new build LHD, what sort of lead time would the RAN need to take something like that on .
I don’t think we need the full 36 strike air wing, was more thinking along the lines 18/24 B’s with 9x MH60R’s and Merlin crowsnest 6x AEW? ...If POW was offered it has had some mods for the RM could be an enlarged USS America. We just can do the heavy equipment over the beach with it.
I suppose the question is if POW was offered at a reasonable price and government wished to not only expand the ADF assault/long range strike capability, which way should the RAN jump?
Whilst most likely would more expensive than a new build LHD, what sort of lead time would the RAN need to take something like that on .
I don’t think we need the full 36 strike air wing, was more thinking along the lines 18/24 B’s with 9x MH60R’s and Merlin crowsnest 6x AEW? ...If POW was offered it has had some mods for the RM could be an enlarged USS America. We just can do the heavy equipment over the beach with it.
I suppose the question is if POW was offered at a reasonable price and government wished to not only expand the ADF assault/long range strike capability, which way should the RAN jump?
I wouldn't consider anything about pommy defence and BREXIT as being an odds on favourite, in fact I think all bets are off. This BREXIT process has been the biggest stuff up since Dunkirk and it has all the makings of a ballsup that even Edmund Blackadder couldn't engineer on his best day. I wonder what Sir Humphrey would think about all of this. Ok from my POV the current pommy PM's BREXIT Plan B has the aerodynamic abilities of a very large rock and a similar velocity of said rock falling from a great height. There are three possibilities:
- That there will be a hard BREXIT
- That the Plan B will scrape through Parliament
- That there is a Plan C pushed through Parliament which is the UK cancelling BREXIT.
- Cancelling BREXIT is an option, but whoever does it would not be very popular amongst some of the population. However I think that if a referendum was held now the vote would be different.
- I think it will be a hard BREXIT and in that case there may be another vote of no confidence in Parliament. If this is successful then Corbyn will be in power, so maybe both CVs will be on the market along with a sizeable number of F-35B, SSBN, SSN, P-8A, Merlins, Apaches etc. If however the current govt survives, then that's a different kettle of fish and they may tackle defence differently than in the past, because they no longer can rely on easy access to Europe. Still a big lottery on what they will do though.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
If Corbyn is as bad as you suggest then the Russians must be working overtime to ensure he wins the next election. I doubt he would have the political capital to cancel everything on your list but should he win then Dreadnaught would be the most likely cut IMO.
He's further left than Mao Zedong. He appears to have a pretty solid support base amongst the Labour faithful and his caucus so dislodging him may be difficulty and they don't have the Australian pollie disease. He doesn't sing the National Anthem and I don't think he would bow or curtsy to HM The Queen. They reckon that The Boss didn't like Maggie Thatcher one bit, so can't imagine her liking Corbyn, but The Boss is ever the consummate professional.
So he would cut defence spending right back, and divert the funds to a massive social spending program, harking back to the halcyon days of Labour Govts during the 1960 - 70s. Those govts back then were more moderate compared to what he would be.
It would be in a different league again. You would have a single example of a very large and unique ship with huge crewing requirements (which would be far more burdensome than the purchase price, which would be 2-5 times that of a LHD). Crew of 700 is closer to twice times that of a LHD, so you would be looking at laying up one or more ships (like frigates/destroyers/LHD) to be able to crew that. Then you have to ask the question could the RAAF put on another 2 or 3 squadrons of F-35B's to make use of a ship of that capability. Then would the Australian government be able to fund it adequately in times of peace and in times of war. The Army would quite clearly would be the loser, cause we would need to reallocate a few battalions of the army to the Navy and Airforce.
While I don't like to say things are impossible I think it is very unlikely. And the sort of situation where it might become available there would be an equal bet of the UK re-negging on the deal (like last time?).
And what does that higher level of capability buy you? It still isn't enough to compare to the level of capability US/China are working on. Regionally we could do what we needed to do with less aircraft than a QE. With a 3rd LHD, we would still have effectively up 3 carriers, so if we needed to surge capability (most likely in conjunction with allies) we would still be a significant player in that.
The advantages of a 3rd LHD being an off the peg purchase, with training, logistics, risks, support, Army amphibious value, sealift, HDAR, etc etc should not be undervalued. Expanding an existing pool is much easier and cheaper than establishing a new pool, by an order of magnitude. The value of flexibility in deployment, capability, crewing, upgrading etc is very high.
For the type of operations Australia is likely to be leading or contributing, a LHD is going to be much more useful than a full dedicated strike carrier of a single ship.
If we want to compare ships in a ball park way:
Canberra class:
Crew ~350 (~300 RAN, ~60 Army, 3 RAAF)
Cost ~$1-1.5 billion AUD
Amphibious force: ~1200 troops
Airwing: ~?8+ F-35B's + helicopters (25 max)
Trieste LHD:
Crew:~460
Cost: ~€ 1.1 billion ($1.75 Billion AUD)
Amphibious force: ~1050 troops
Airwing: ~10 F-35B's + helicopters
Izumo Class:
Crew: 970 total (inc airwing)
Cost: $1.2 billion USD ($1.7 billion AUD)
Amphibious force:??
Airwing:? 8-12 F-35 + helicopters (28 max)
USS America:
Crew:~1060 sailors
Cost: $3.4 billion USD ($4.43 Billion AUD)
Amphibious force: ~1600 troops
Airwing: ~20 F-35 + helicopters
Queen Elizabeth Class
Crew: ~680 not including air element
Cost: ~£3.1 billion each ($5.7 Billion AUD)
Amphibious force: ~250-900
Airwing: ~50+ F-35B's.
So if you need to support a lot of planes, then the QE is the one to go with. You could arm wrestle mid sized nations (like 1980's Argentina) with considerable ease. Smaller nations you would be so utterly dominant, you could exert US levels of diplomacy. You could slip in and replace US carrier power when required. Global power projection or full war intensity level of operations. America would give you significant capability, likely to overpower anyone in our immediate region without being reliant on land based air. Trieste is getting close to America sized deck and capability, it could in theory operate more than 10 F-35's. Izumo is a bit mysterious because its not in its final config.
In terms of Amphibious capability all a fairly similar (except Izumo). America is bigger, but has no dock. QE is significant, but has no dock. Trieste and Canberra are similar in overall capability and cost. Realistically Trieste, Izumo and Canberra are the only realistic options Australia has of a proven build type for some sort of amphibious/carrier ship. Everything else quickly spirals upwards in terms of cost, manpower and capability.
I recall about 30 years ago Pacific Defence Reporter had an article on Australia's two UNSINKABLE Carriers: Cocos Island and Christmas Island. One might also add Norfolk Island as well and in the future, with PNG permission, Manus Island. Of course islands are static and can be raided and invaded because of their known locations but they do provide an alternative to naval aircraft carriers.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Yep - was not England the 'unsinkable aircraft carrier of WWII'? Australia would be one of the largest. Japan has a tonne of small islands in a chain to the south and yet they want to haveTWO flat decks? But anyway as Malcolm Davis (did I say Davies earlier on? I should be hung, drawn & quartered then keelhauled, walking the plank dragooned-like & shanghaied) suggest the B add a lot to the sea based network. Having that flat deck move around all the time is also useful. We need 'fleet defence' - not with an aircraft carrier but a third LHD suitably modified perhaps as the others will be one day. Has anyone seen any RAAF details about their ideas for 'fleet defence'? One runs out of words to not repeat oneself. It is thoughtful of the of the commentariat to publish more words about this topic. I'm guessing there will be a lot of opportunities in the next decade.
By the by it is reported that the Japanese Government will buy IWO-JIMA far south of Japan NOT in that island chain so that the USN can use if for FCLP unimpeded. OhNoes another airfield but short.
OOPs measuring the runway on IWO JIMA it is 8,700 feet. However the FCLP part is short.After years of talks, Japan to buy island for US aircraft-carrier landing practice, report says - Association of Naval Aviation in Virginia Beach, Virginia - Hampton Roads Squadron
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
@StingrayOZ ...IIRC, the follow-on ships after America will see the return of the well deck. The more I see about the QE class the more I like it. Can’t believe Corbyn would ever get away with selling them off should be become PM. I think the Dreadnaught program would go first as he might get away with that.
Cocos/Christmas are unsinkable, but they also aren't awesomely placed. Christmas is advantageous for Singapore and Jakarta, but not for fighters, and with out survivable airspace, no body is going anywhere.
Not all the islands support full sized runways for fighter aircraft or refuelling aircraft. However 737 sized aircraft can operate at most of them (ie P8/E7).
Here is a map with circles 1000km and 3000km around Manus, Christmas and Darwin. This is napkin calculations so no precision here.
1000km is probably the radius limit for the F-35 (if the run way could be modified to support it in optimal conditions a2a?).
3000km is probably the un-refuelled radius limit for Wedgetail/p8.
So we can easily have coverage with E7/P8 basically all over SEA from these three points un-refuelled. However, for land based fighters, they go nowhere and our kc-30's can't operate from Christmas or Manus islands.
So for me, being able to annoy any projecting aggressive force (sea or air) in this space would be all the capability we (and allies and friendlies) are looking for. From the edge of India, through to the lower part of Vietnam, Philippines, out past the Marshall islands.
RAAF seems to think the Navy only will ever operate within its continental base coverage. In that case we will be underpressure as capital cities end up in range of munitions. I would hope a small number of maritime focused aircraft might help chairforce thinking regarding coverage.
Japan using Mageshima is interesting. Its all about location location location.
If Corbyn gets elected it isn't clear he would have any better plan than May. Both parties are pretty fragile right now, and are likely to implode under trying to find Brexit solutions. With Corbyn, if there is holes in the budget it is quite clear which areas he wouldn't be cutting, and which he would. Military cuts would be highly likely, but then if Brexit goes badly, that is likely anyway.
For the QE class I think most of the enthusiasm was about building them. Lots of money and lots of jobs. The Tories have stuffed around with them plenty by themselves. They are fantastic ships, but at a very high level.
Not all the islands support full sized runways for fighter aircraft or refuelling aircraft. However 737 sized aircraft can operate at most of them (ie P8/E7).
Here is a map with circles 1000km and 3000km around Manus, Christmas and Darwin. This is napkin calculations so no precision here.
1000km is probably the radius limit for the F-35 (if the run way could be modified to support it in optimal conditions a2a?).
3000km is probably the un-refuelled radius limit for Wedgetail/p8.
So we can easily have coverage with E7/P8 basically all over SEA from these three points un-refuelled. However, for land based fighters, they go nowhere and our kc-30's can't operate from Christmas or Manus islands.
So for me, being able to annoy any projecting aggressive force (sea or air) in this space would be all the capability we (and allies and friendlies) are looking for. From the edge of India, through to the lower part of Vietnam, Philippines, out past the Marshall islands.
RAAF seems to think the Navy only will ever operate within its continental base coverage. In that case we will be underpressure as capital cities end up in range of munitions. I would hope a small number of maritime focused aircraft might help chairforce thinking regarding coverage.
Japan using Mageshima is interesting. Its all about location location location.
If Corbyn gets elected it isn't clear he would have any better plan than May. Both parties are pretty fragile right now, and are likely to implode under trying to find Brexit solutions. With Corbyn, if there is holes in the budget it is quite clear which areas he wouldn't be cutting, and which he would. Military cuts would be highly likely, but then if Brexit goes badly, that is likely anyway.
For the QE class I think most of the enthusiasm was about building them. Lots of money and lots of jobs. The Tories have stuffed around with them plenty by themselves. They are fantastic ships, but at a very high level.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Gotta luv maps mit circles. ASPI of old had one: Search | Australian Strategic Policy Institute | ASPI Looks like it is not at that URL no more so ain't I glad I have saved - THE MAP.
Agree the QE Class is far to much ship for our defence force to operate and does not deliver the type of flexibility offered by the Canberra Class. The docking well for amphibious operations is a must, and the Canberra class ships flight deck is still sufficient for the types of aircraft we will need to operate off them. With regards to the F35B, no doubt the QE class will be an outstanding platform for that aircraft; so while it is conjecture whether we will go down that path with the Canberra Class, I would be confident the ship retrofitted with the required modifications would still prove a useful F35B platform.
Fixed wing numbers may be modest but that is much better than the alternative which is either nothing / relying on shore based assets / or relying on allies.
i don't see our LHD's being used in the SCS with or without the F35b ,and with or without the USA in a hot war situation.
I do see them used around and south of the equator, and it's there that a modest number of mobile F35B 's will be the game changer to any adversary.
Oh and remember they can also carry troops,vehicles and helicopters as well.
As has been advocated, three of the same class of ship have a lot of benefits for the ADF in the 2020's and beyond.
Maybe time to amend the 2016 DWP
Regards S
I just can't see adding an aircraft carrier of any sort as a priority.
Surely there is a long list of acquisitions that would occur before this.
Regards,
Massive
This is the reason the UK won't reduce defence, and especially power projection assets such as the QE, post Brexit. They need the leverage as part of the "Global Britain" rebranding. Of course if there is a sustained economic downturn this will impact defence, and at this stage there is too much uncertainty over possible outcomes to engage in anything more than speculation.
If Corbyn gets in all bets are off though. Expect not only lots of ex-UK kit on the market but lots of ex-UK servicemen and women too; not many are keen on his politics or view of the military.
It is doable and probably cheaper than buying a carrier. Plus would be a pain in the ass for any one with bad intentions for the areas. In peacetime bare bases but maybe not so bare because you could forward deploy P-8s etc out of them.
The KC-30 has a MTOW of 233 tonnes which gives it a takeoff distance at MTOW (Sea level) of 7,280 ft and the wheel base is 25 m (82 ft). The runway at the Cocos (Keeling) Islands is 7,999 ft long, and 148 ft wide; at Christmas Island 6,900 ft long and 148 ft wide.
Both runways would have to be lengthened, strengthened and most likely widened and the airport taxiways, facilities and hard standings upgraded.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Wind and surface temperature [in tropics significant] have an effect on take off distance along with any slope in the runway, not only the takeoff weight. TWO KC-30s could operate perhaps with a lesser load then one refuels the other enroute to station whilst tuther lands again [light] to refuel - rinse & repeat if necessary OR they turn about to save crews from absolute boredom.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Methinks a 'serious' aircraft carrier needs to have the electrical capacity for EMALS (as installed in USN FORD Class CVNs). This (digital as TRUMP calls it) catapult system enables heavyweight and then lightweight launches back to back as they may occur with STINGRAY robotic refueller to an UAV or whatever. Without nuclear power the electrical generating power required may make EMALS a non starter for conventional power carriers (reverting to steam catapults). Perhaps this is a furphy when steam will be adequate but hard on aircraft.
Anyway we see perhaps China and India joining the USN and France in this exclusive club - who else?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
What are the electrical requirements for EMALS? At one point this was under consideration for the QE class during the B to C back to B saga with the F-35. Cost was the claimed reason for not proceeding. The two MT30s produce about 78 MW and the diesel output brings to total to 110 MW or so. If this isn’t sufficient I wonder if adding an extra MT30 would make EMALS feasible for a conventionally powered carrier?
- Status