A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[Seaforth]

Personally a RAN traditional aircraft carrier is up there with an Indonesian invasion. Its all about looking at cool numbers and ignoring reality.

Perhaps you could answer a twist on your own question, when would fast jets deployed from a carrier be more useful than deployed from land to the ADF? Keep in mind the structure of our region.

Now let me see, where are our personnel deployed today..

Global Operations - Department of Defence

Ah yes 70% of today's overseas deployments are to Afghanistan!

The structure of our immediate region is less important.

I've had enough of this closed mindedness for one night..

 

[Seaforth]

You forget the Argies advanced their invasion just to avoid the British submarines deployments... They might not be visible at sea but the results of their deployment was very visible...

I''m not in the loop how many subs Australia needs, but six for an island continent is probably not enough. Especially since submarines can do many jobs outside of sea denial. It wasn't naval aviation which sunk most of the Japanese merchant marine during WWII, much of that was done by the submarine service...

How many ships have been sunk by subs since WWII? How many missions have been launched from carriers since WWII?

Now tell me which is more useful...

 

[jeffb]

Now let me see, where are our personnel deployed today..

Global Operations - Department of Defence

Ah yes 70% of today's overseas deployments are to Afghanistan!

The structure of our immediate region is less important.

I've had enough of this closed mindedness for one night..

Thats not answering the question or are you saying that carriers provide better air support than land based aircraft in Afghanistan? If you are, thats crazy, go look at a map.

Our region is important to the ADF, thats why they're pursuing an enlarged sub force. Defence planning is about the future not the past, if you really think one carrier would deter a future PLA navy you're mistaken. A competent sub force on the other hand can make an impact.

edit: Don't call people close minded just because they don't agree with you, when you yourself are being completely dismissive of their opinions.

 

[gf0012-aust]

How many ships have been sunk by subs since WWII? How many missions have been launched from carriers since WWII?

Now tell me which is more useful...

Thats not an apples and apples comparison.

Subs provide far more useful INT than a flat top ever could.

Disproportionate to their size and cost, subs tie up far more enemy assets and cause far more track management grief than any flat top group (CV/LH) could ever hope to do.

Subs are not expeditionary, subs can't provide relief , cannot cash and carry.
The sustainment costs for subs dwarf what it will cost to support an LHA and its support group. Which in absolute terms is meaningless anyway as they have different roles.

as an alternative. $100m worth of sea mines have caused over $1bn dollars in damage in the last 20 years - a number of those hull compromises were done by WW1 contact mines.

pound for pound, sea mines have done far more cost effective management than any modern missile system has done since missiles became mainstream weapons.

apart from the fact that no one is going to talk about what subs exactly bring to the table, I'd point out that incoming govts, some of whom were hostile to subs, when shown the material of what they do and can do have changed their minds pretty quickly.

finally, its not defence that proposed "nn" number of subs to Govt. Defence were obliged to submit robust cases to support the acquisition of various future technologies - it was Govt that decided the numbers.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

For a start, with two separate types one would need a larger number of spare air frames. Then there are training differences, different skill sets develop, and supply chain differences too. Sounds like a nightmare compared to operating a single type.

The differences are more than manageable in the kind of numbers talked about here and because in the case of the F-35A and F-35B most of their complexity (mission systems) is identical. You won’t see any savings in training aircraft and attrition spares because of the small gross number of aircraft.

That's a very inflexible approach - no wonder defence costs us so much! Firstly, aircraft aren't permanently deployed to carriers. They probably spend almost half the year at their airfield. Secondly the carrier is just a moving airfield - it carries what's needed at the time. Most of the time that might only be, say, 12 aircraft. So why lug around 24, when, as you say, they can be better deployed at that time at a fixed airfield.

Who says they only need 12 or must have 24? How can you make a reasonable efficiency argument about arbitrary figures!!!

As for a carrier just being a moveable airfield clearly you’ve never had anything to do with one. Everyone on the carrier – including the fighter pilots – sees themselves as an integrated weapon system. The aircraft do what they are told to do by the ship in the RN/RAN tradition. The Ship’s Aviation Officer (Wings) is in charge and everyone – Navy, Army, Air Force – and fly what they are tasked to fly by Wings nothing more, nothing less.

This discussion would benefit from more outside the box thinking, otherwise we'll end up with 12 pretty useless submarines (cut back to 8).

Defence capability is usually quite conservative because it is really hard to do. Armchair admirals like to think of innovative ways to do things but are usually only such because they are hugely simplified understandings of what goes on. Classic case of this kind of thinking is all the ‘solutions’ to climate change offered up by the Greens party which have little understanding or appreciation of energy production, technology and the subsequent survival of humans. But their solutions sound real good and easy as long as you know nothing about the subject matter.

 

[Volkodav]

Thats not an apples and apples comparison.

Subs provide far more useful INT than a flat top ever could.

Disproportionate to their size and cost, subs tie up far more enemy assets and cause far more track management grief than any flat top group (CV/LH) could ever hope to do.

Subs are not expeditionary, subs can't provide relief , cannot cash and carry. the sustainment costs for subs dwarf what it will cost to support an LHA and its support group. Which in absolute terms is meaningless anyway as they different roles.

as an alternative. $100m worth of sea mines have caused over $1bn dollars in damage in the last 20 years - a number of those hull compromises were done by WW1 contact mines.

pound for pound, sea mines have done far more cost effective management than any modern missile system has done since missiles became mainstream weapons.

apart from the fact that no one is going to talk about what subs exactly bring to the table, I'd point out that incoming govts, some of whom were hostile to subs, when shown the material of what they do and can do have changed their minds pretty quickly.

finally, its not defence that proposed "nn" number of subs to Govt. Defence were obliged to submit robust cases to support the acquisition of various future technologies - it was Govt that decided the numbers.

I would add that the number of subs is related to how many we want / need on station(s) at any given time. Best case senario 6 hulls gives you 2 on station, if you have more areas of interest than that you need to increase the total number of hulls. Ironically 8 hulls should give you 3 on station 10 will give you 4 and 12 could give you 5. This is because the maintenance cycle is pretty much fixed and a sub in a full cycle docking will be unavailable for over a year, the more subs you have the smaller the percentage of youe fleet in peices in the shed in Adelaide.

A more reasonable apples for apples comparision for a carrier would be land based aircraft and fixed bases, for instance, if we had maintained or upgraded our carrier force would we have needed to build the bare bones bases in remote areas? How much did they cost and how much do they continue to cost? If we hads carriers would we need to disperse our airforce as much as we do? Would our aircombat fleet be as small as it is, would our MPA fleet be as small as it is?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

if we had maintained or upgraded our carrier force would we have needed to build the bare bones bases in remote areas? How much did they cost and how much do they continue to cost?

That's unfair to carriers because we never needed to build those bases. They are completely useless for Australia's defence because they will never face an invasion. They are finding some use as locations for immigration control so hopefully defence will be able to sell them to the department of immigration and recoup some wasted money.

I would argue is the only value trade off for carriers is the effectiveness of the surface fleet. If we want a surface navy to be able to operate independently as a national force or centrepiece of an international force at anything higher than low intensity conflict then we need a carrier. Especially to support and protect an amphibious landing.

There might be ways to achieve a carrier like capability via SM-6, TLAM, improved NGS/tactical land attack and Wedgetail AEW&C but none of this comes close to what a proper carrier can bring to the table. If you look at all the areas the RAN is trying to acquire capability in: stand off ASW, maritime strike, long range air defence – it is all the things that carriers are best at. The need is there just not the wherewithal to provide it via the best means.

 

[Volkodav]

That's unfair to carriers because we never needed to build those bases. They are completely useless for Australia's defence because they will never face an invasion. They are finding some use as locations for immigration control so hopefully defence will be able to sell them to the department of immigration and recoup some wasted money.

I would argue is the only value trade off for carriers is the effectiveness of the surface fleet. If we want a surface navy to be able to operate independently as a national force or centrepiece of an international force at anything higher than low intensity conflict then we need a carrier. Especially to support and protect an amphibious landing.

There might be ways to achieve a carrier like capability via SM-6, TLAM, improved NGS/tactical land attack and Wedgetail AEW&C but none of this comes close to what a proper carrier can bring to the table. If you look at all the areas the RAN is trying to acquire capability in: stand off ASW, maritime strike, long range air defence – it is all the things that carriers are best at. The need is there just not the wherewithal to provide it via the best means.

Ok we don't need the bases but we did pay for them and continue to do so. Any idea how much they cost and how that compares to the cost of a carrier?

You stated in a previous post that a carrier in an integrated system, I agree and would add that this makes them even more attractive as they are pretty much the ideal UCAV platform (once the USN has developed and certified the capability). They have everything you need to operate UCAVs in one place. IMO they will have the added advantage for the operators / pilots of moral, they will live with their aircraft and the be a physical part of the team, rather than clocking on in a control center on the otherside of the world. Especially when you have manned aircraft deploying with UCAVs the operators knowing and living with the pilots will make for a closer knit stronger and more effective team.

 

[Sea Toby]

That's unfair to carriers because we never needed to build those bases. They are completely useless for Australia's defence because they will never face an invasion. They are finding some use as locations for immigration control so hopefully defence will be able to sell them to the department of immigration and recoup some wasted money.

A bare air base providing an excellent unsinkable runway with sufficient fuel and bomb bunkerage and housing which probably didn't run over $100 million is a bargain compared to a $2 to $3 billion aircraft carrier, plus another $1 to $2 billion for more escorting and replenishment vessels....

The bare air bases provide the infrastructure for hundreds of allied aircraft if necessary... Otherwise they park on grass or dirt, not in bunkered hangars... Well, the Saudis built bunkered hangars for their bare air bases, which came in very handy during Desert Storm... I would be surprised if the four bare air bases had much more effect on the ADF's budget than one Anzac frigate. One thing is certain, the nation won't have to spend another $4 billion or more to replace the bare air bases when it comes time to pay off an aircraft carrier...

 

[jeffb]

Especially to support and protect an amphibious landing.

Thats the thing though, the chances of the ADF launching an amphibious landing anywhere outside perhaps some Pacific islands is virtually nothing. All the armies throughout Asia are significantly bigger than us and a landing on the other side of the world is impractical.

Still the benefits of some form of carrier operating UAVs for ASW, AEW, etc to the RAN are easy to see, although its hard to see it being a huge leap from what the RAN already has planned.

 

[Jaimito]

The F35b can weight a lot loaded, like 27 t. or more, you might need or be advisable to use 5 spots in an Lhd for the runway. Then 6 jet parking places in flight deck. 4 jet places if 1 permanent helo spot, 2 jet places (fore, if it gives for 2) if 2 permanent helo spot (use the one next back Sea Ram), in this last case (2 permanent helo spot and 5 spot jet runway):

-my personal counts can be remade for max number of jets handled in air simultaneously, landing by groups of 2 or even 3 (use the jet launching place for parking the 1st jet to be launched), but in one turn, that is, you have to dispatch the group before the next group comes.

A possible config is 18 jets with 30 minutes for dispatching 3 jets, and space in the hangar for helos is 4 jet places (16 jets in hangar, 2 in flight deck fore places), so like 4 jet places in hangar give 5 Asw helos in hangar or more, plus 2 in flight deck (tight to alonside island) give 7 med size helos to be able to be operated in 2 permanent free spots, simultaneously with the 18 jets in air.

I see mentions that arresting is faster than vertical landing. But arresting is one after the other. Landing vertically 3 jets, each 16 mts long in 5 spots length like 130 or 140 (not counting the sky jump mts) that they can do it almost simultaneously. Vertically you have to brake slowly for beign well positioned above the ship. A succesful arresting requires to brake less time than vertically aproximation for F35b, in the F35b also depends on the pilot to get used to do it.


Edit: Imagine next to the back Sea Ram (or the 1st helo spot next to back lift) give for 3 jet places, then use the med helo spot in fore part for helos ops or Uav´s, and have 3 jet places plus the jet launching place, so 4 places, and still 2 permanent helo spots. This 4 places Increase for 18 jets at groups of 2 by 40 minutes (because of 2 turns for landing), better. Or worse because now you have both permanent helos spots separated (fore and back), or worse for weapons lift and fuel stations for the jet places...

So it depends a lot on the parking places you can have.

 

[rip]

Thats the thing though, the chances of the ADF launching an amphibious landing anywhere outside perhaps some Pacific islands is virtually nothing. All the armies throughout Asia are significantly bigger than us and a landing on the other side of the world is impractical.

Still the benefits of some form of carrier operating UAVs for ASW, AEW, etc to the RAN are easy to see, although its hard to see it being a huge leap from what the RAN already has planned.

It is impractical for Austria to contemplate an Aircraft carrier as of the type used in the US Navy. But it could profit from different kind. There is a kind of aircraft carrier that no longer exists I am afraid; it was called a Jeep Carrier that was very useful inn WW II. Comparing that old design to today’s needs would be a waste of time.They were built upon a commercial hull they were slow.

But I think there is a place once again for the Jeep Carrier in naval warfare. In WW II they had
four main uses. The first was to give sustained and continuous air support to amphibious ground forces, they were very important in the north Atlantic for ASW escort for convoys, they could easily be put into action as transports ships for oversized and special cargo, and lastly to provide ready replacement air craft to replace the loses of the fleet carriers so that they could stay in the fight after they lost some of their plains in battle and not have to withdraw to replenish with new aircraft.

In WW II the Carriers main job was that of the capital ship in fleet, for fleet to fleet battles, but that is no longer the case. Today the carrier’s main job is mount sustained attacks upon shore targets. That is why they have to be so big (eighty to one hundred aircraft), so that they have enough ground attack aircraft that they can make a big impression on cities and such. Today, the Sea control functions can be taken care of mostly by other platforms, especially Guided Missile Cruisers and submarines but carriers have many other uses.

The Jeep type carrier of today could handle six STOV fighter type aircraft with four helicopters built upon a fast hull. I would have one new electric type catapult for the regular use of a C-4D AEW type aircraft but could also handle a COD types aircraft for resupply for critical parts, mail, and personal transfer. It could do most of the things a carrier could do, like provides extended air cover and surveillance of surface ships, humanitarian add, transport ect without braking the countries bank. I think the US could use about ten such ships at the cost of what two big carriers would cost us that could be in five times as many places but they will never be built. The cost of building a one off cannot be justified.

 

[gf0012-aust]

6 jets or less means that any flat top cannot maintain and sustain minimum operations. that includes CAP, support to the ASW rotors, support to airborne AWACs and hav redundancy of capability for surge events.

There's a reason why through deck and STOVL cruisers became a bad idea and why all modern navies dropped them after the assets hit their shelf life, and were subsequently not replaced for like capability.

A single small carrier with 6 fixed wing fighter jets will not be able to enter contested complex battlespace and survive with any confidence.

all the assumptions in the world will not change the facts of what all modern navies have learnt about what a minimum fixed wing fighter squadron should comprise.

redundancy of combat air assets is essential - 4 to 6 aircraft is a nonsense in contested space.

 

[gf0012-aust]

So it depends a lot on the parking places you can have.

It's not about parking spaces at all.

It's about mission set requirements, its about maintaining operational tempo, its about covring off all the other support requirements, its about bunkerage issues.

These are the actual facts and considerations, we know this from experience and shaed experiences from multiple partners.

numbers alone do NOT tell the requirements story.

 

[SASWanabe]

It is impractical for Austria to contemplate an Aircraft carrier as of the type used in the US Navy. But it could profit from different kind. There is a kind of aircraft carrier that no longer exists I am afraid; it was called a Jeep Carrier that was very useful inn WW II. Comparing that old design to today’s needs would be a waste of time.They were built upon a commercial hull they were slow.

considering its a landlocked country thats kinda obvious

6 jets or less means that any flat top cannot maintain and sustain minimum operations. that includes CAP, support to the ASW rotors, support to airborne AWACs and hav redundancy of capability for surge events.

There's a reason why through deck and STOVL cruisers became a bad idea and why all modern navies dropped them after the assets hit their shelf life, and were subsequently not replaced for like capability.

A single small carrier with 6 fixed wing fighter jets will not be able to enter contested complex battlespace and survive with any confidence.

all the assumptions in the world will not change the facts of what all modern navies have learnt about what a minimum fixed wing fighter squadron should comprise.

redundancy of combat air assets is essential - 4 to 6 aircraft is a nonsense in contested space.

which is why im advocating something along the lines of Cavour for the RAN using its F35B off the LHDs while their alongside purely for training while the carrier is in refit/refurb

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A bare air base providing an excellent unsinkable runway with sufficient fuel and bomb bunkerage and housing which probably didn't run over $100 million is a bargain compared to a $2 to $3 billion aircraft carrier

One problem with your comparison. The bare base doesn’t move. So since they have been constructed what utility have these bases provided for the following conflicts and crisis as an air base: Kosovo, East Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq, boat people crisis? Nothing. What contribution could they make to conflicts in local hotspots: Bougainville, Fiji, West Papua, Borneo, South China Sea, Mindanao, Kra Isthmus, Korea, Taiwan, Burma, etc. Nothing. Unless Australia is going to be invaded they are a total waste of effort and treasure. If Australia was going to be invaded we would have plenty of lead time and need a lot more than just these bases so they net contribution would be minimal.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Thats the thing though, the chances of the ADF launching an amphibious landing anywhere outside perhaps some Pacific islands is virtually nothing. All the armies throughout Asia are significantly bigger than us and a landing on the other side of the world is impractical.

You seriously misunderstand the nature of regional geography and land force power. A mobile reinforced battalion group like the ARG is a very powerful unit in a south east Asian regional context. Apart from a few localised areas near major bases they would have no problem running roughshod over regional armies because they lack firepower and mobility. But anyway the strategy is not to go invading the back country of our neighbours and friends but rather to contribute to regional security and be able to defeat incursions from outside powers.

 

[gf0012-aust]

One problem with your comparison. The bare base doesn’t move. So since they have been constructed what utility have these bases provided for the following conflicts and crisis as an air base: Kosovo, East Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq, boat people crisis? Nothing.

agree in principle, but the bases have been activated approx 4 times in anger, and aircraft on QRA for strike.

they've also been used for cross training with special forces and other coalition training events.

 

[SASWanabe]

agree in principle, but the bases have been activated approx 4 times in anger, and aircraft on QRA for strike.

they've also been used for cross training with special forces and other coalition training events.

dumb question but, if the indonesians (hypotheticaly) try to take ET again how long would it take RAAF jets on QRA to reach Dili/Jakarta?

now how long would it take jets from an aircraft carrier off the coast of ET?

that in itself to me would be the worth of an aircraft carrier over bare bones bases...

 

[gf0012-aust]

dumb question but, if the indonesians (hypotheticaly) try to take ET again how long would it take RAAF jets on QRA to reach Dili/Jakarta?

depends on where they waypointed, refueling spots etc......

now how long would it take jets from an aircraft carrier off the coast of ET?

`15mins, but the requirements are different. eg there is no way that you would shove an LHA off the coast to strike indonesia/jakarta. Indon subs would be as happy as larry at the opportunity. the cost to get a fully effective and adequately protected task force within the EEZ strike range would be humongous. Its a theatre event, so you would have subs sitting off indonesia as warning mesages (which was what happened last time)

that in itself to me would be the worth of an aircraft carrier over bare bones bases...

bare bones bases provide more than just interim staging points. an LHA led task force has limits. a lot of thought goes into the tactical planning of how we intend using these things, there are series of vignettes that are crafted up to show how we react.

personally (and I am a fan of carriers) I don't see them as cost effective solutions for what we need to do. if we need to go expeditionary then it will be a coalition event. we're not geared to to pretend that we can do anything else.

there's a heavy reality component added to tactical planning - and we plan out for the next 20-30 years