View Full Version : Is the Royal Australian Navy trying to get a Aircraft Carrier?
bookworm_020
08-30-07, 11:28 PM
There has been some interesting news reports in the last couple of weeks about the decision to purchase the spainsh landing craft ships for the Royal Australian Navy.
They have the option of puting a ski jump on the fron of the ship enabling them to operate V/STOL aircraft. It was raised at one stage the RAAF should change some of it's order for the F-35A aircraft to F-35B's.
With the report of RAAF pilot's undertaking carrier landing and takoff's in the U.S.A., one has to wonder if the Australian Navy has a dream to get back into carrier operations for the fist time since 1983.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_class_large_amphibious_ship
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australia-issues-official-tender-for-a-20b-large-amphibious-ships-program-02213/
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22279837-601,00.html
kiwi_2005
08-30-07, 11:38 PM
I wouldnt be surprise one bit if they end up with one.
Jimbuna
08-31-07, 06:44 AM
Probably a non starter, but I wonder if they'll get any of Britains present compliment when the newer/larger ones are ready.......probably too old by then, right ? :hmm:
I don't know why the USN doesn't offer to sell them one of the LHAs that are being decomissioned. Most are being sunk for targets or artificial reefs anyways.
Although they have bought used boats in the past, the present adminisistration likes buying new kit cos it means jobs. Doubt that they can afford one at the moment but the navy would love to get back to having a real fleet air arm instead of just the helos.
For a nation surrounded by ocean as we are to not have a naval air strike capability in this region has never made much sense to me. Not that the Melbourne was much of one in the first place.
bookworm_020
09-02-07, 09:15 PM
Another reason why they wouldn't want to buy the Ex U.S. ships is due to the problems they had when they purchased the Kanimbla class (ex Newport LST's).
The fact that they can then push for a third of the class at a later stage is another reason the RAN would back the building of the vessals over purchase of existing ships.
Another reason why they wouldn't want to buy the Ex U.S. ships is due to the problems they had when they purchased the Kanimbla class (ex Newport LST's).
The fact that they can then push for a third of the class at a later stage is another reason the RAN would back the building of the vessals over purchase of existing ships.
I hate to say it, but those Newports were old vessels, and not what the Australian navy needed at the time. I mean they were basically rebuilt during the refits. However, the Tarawas are some of the most capable Amphib Carriers currently afloat. Or better yet . . . they should sign on to get a new LHA(R) . . . that will be coming online in the next couple years . . . or a Wasp LHD.
Another reason why they wouldn't want to buy the Ex U.S. ships is due to the problems they had when they purchased the Kanimbla class (ex Newport LST's).
The fact that they can then push for a third of the class at a later stage is another reason the RAN would back the building of the vessals over purchase of existing ships.
a 3rd of class is not going to happen. However we will be getting another large amphib of different design/capability to replace the 2nd LPA.
I hate to say it, but those Newports were old vessels, and not what the Australian navy needed at the time. I mean they were basically rebuilt during the refits. However, the Tarawas are some of the most capable Amphib Carriers currently afloat. Or better yet . . . they should sign on to get a new LHA(R) . . . that will be coming online in the next couple years . . . or a Wasp LHD.
US LHDs/LHAs are a bit too big and manpower intensive for us.
bookworm_020
09-03-07, 06:02 PM
a 3rd of class is not going to happen. However we will be getting another large amphib of different design/capability to replace the 2nd LPA.
Most likley a smaller one than the Canberra class amphibs. Something around the size of the Kanimbla class, maybe two smaller ones as this would giver greater flexability than just having one.
Kapitan
09-04-07, 05:07 AM
Not being funny but i think a carrier the size of ark royal would suit them, its 600 man crew unlike the 5000 on us carriers and a small but powerful air wing.
a 3rd of class is not going to happen. However we will be getting another large amphib of different design/capability to replace the 2nd LPA.
Most likley a smaller one than the Canberra class amphibs. Something around the size of the Kanimbla class, maybe two smaller ones as this would giver greater flexability than just having one.
No, we will not be getting two of a secoind class. manpower issues again. We have 3 big amphibs now. We will have 3 in 10 years time (but all newer/bigger/better/more capable). And hopefully will have replacements well in motion for the LCHs.
But we cannot have 4 big 'phibs. It simply won't happen.
Jimbuna
09-04-07, 02:41 PM
Not being funny but i think a carrier the size of ark royal would suit them, its 600 man crew unlike the 5000 on us carriers and a small but powerful air wing.
Agreed....they already have problems trying to crew yhe Collins Class subs :yep:
Overall the ADF is having serious problems in maintaining a standing defence force due to the lcurative job market in the resources sector. A lot of young people who would normally be in the recruitment demographics, are off to the mines to earn a lot better for a lot less hassle than in the forces.
So much so that the government is advocating the spending of your gap year after high school in the forces and has established a program to cycle people through in 12 months temporary roles. (Honestly I don't think that's enough time but they are desparate).
The option of national service and drafting is not there as it is a political hot potato with very little public support for the concept.
bookworm_020
09-05-07, 08:52 PM
So much so that the government is advocating the spending of your gap year after high school in the forces and has established a program to cycle people through in 12 months temporary roles. (Honestly I don't think that's enough time but they are desparate).
It was sold as a try before you buy type deal, with the hope that they would sign on for a regular hitch.
The option of national service and drafting is not there as it is a political hot potato with very little public support for the concept.
I doubt that the draft will be brought back. Any political party who tried would be hung, drawn and quartered!
It was sold as a try before you buy type deal, with the hope that they would sign on for a regular hitch.
I'd be interested in knowing the numbers that do re-up. My guess is not many who do try before buying will be buying so I'm sceptical as to how successful the programme is likely to be.
Overall the ADF is having serious problems in maintaining a standing defence force due to the lcurative job market in the resources sector. A lot of young people who would normally be in the recruitment demographics, are off to the mines to earn a lot better for a lot less hassle than in the forces.
So much so that the government is advocating the spending of your gap year after high school in the forces and has established a program to cycle people through in 12 months temporary roles. (Honestly I don't think that's enough time but they are desparate).
Enough time to be an MT or a qualified CSO? No.
But it is enough time to learn enough basics so that a kid can spend about 9 solid months in the fleet to do jobs like for example: lookout or lifebouy sentry underway, QMA when alongside, and ships husbandry. Thereby decreasing the load for trained and experienced sailors to do mundane tasks and increasing R&R and job satisfaction among the troops. It will also allow exposure for the gap yearies to all the departments, so that if they decide to sign up past the initial year then they will know which jobs they will like and therefore are less likely to get out after thier fixed period of service is over.
It has many benefits.
It was sold as a try before you buy type deal, with the hope that they would sign on for a regular hitch.
I'd be interested in knowing the numbers that do re-up. My guess is not many who do try before buying will be buying so I'm sceptical as to how successful the programme is likely to be.
But that is the big negative IMHO.
The Navy (and ADF as a whole) is a great choice, but they may not think so if all they do for a year is $h!tkicker jobs.
Enough time to be an MT or a qualified CSO? No.
But it is enough time to learn enough basics so that a kid can spend about 9 solid months in the fleet to do jobs like for example: lookout or lifebouy sentry underway, QMA when alongside, and ships husbandry. Thereby decreasing the load for trained and experienced sailors to do mundane tasks and increasing R&R and job satisfaction among the troops. It will also allow exposure for the gap yearies to all the departments, so that if they decide to sign up past the initial year then they will know which jobs they will like and therefore are less likely to get out after thier fixed period of service is over.
It has many benefits.
It was sold as a try before you buy type deal, with the hope that they would sign on for a regular hitch.
I'd be interested in knowing the numbers that do re-up. My guess is not many who do try before buying will be buying so I'm sceptical as to how successful the programme is likely to be.
But that is the big negative IMHO.
The Navy (and ADF as a whole) is a great choice, but they may not think so if all they do for a year is $h!tkicker jobs.
I agree it can be a great career, but as you said if all they get to do is the low end jobs (because that's all they've got time to learn), then they won't want to stay and ultimately I think the programme will fail.
Fundamentally a major part of the problem is current social attitudes that appear to be prevalent in relation to our involvement in overseas deployments. There will always be people attracted to the ADF anyway, whilst these attitudes persist in general society it will continue to be difficult for them to attract the people who would see the benefits of starting their career in the forces but have chosen not to because they oppose some of the current political decions that have resulted in some of our recent overseas deployments.
So I guess a 1200 officer and sailor ship would be out of the question . . . and that's not even including the Air Wing and Marines . . . but then again the Tarawas needed about 2/300 servicemembers less to operate . . . and the Saipan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Saipan_%28LHA-2%29) is still available.
I didn't realize that there was so much difficulty in recruiting . . . I would support a period of civil service . . . but rather, why not require a period of service in the australian version of the National Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard). This way there would be civil service, learning skills which will benefit the individual in the future, and also benefit the regular/active forces by supplementing their numbers in time of dire emergency.
So I guess a 1200 officer and sailor ship would be out of the question . . . and that's not even including the Air Wing and Marines . . . but then again the Tarawas needed about 2/300 servicemembers less to operate . . . and the Saipan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Saipan_%28LHA-2%29) is still available.
Yeah a 1200 crew would represent 1/10th of our full time Naval strength, so thats too many for one asset.
To be honest, currently recruiting is not the main issue, I was in the largest graduation of officers from the RAN College, they struggled to accomadate all of us, and numbers at the enlisted recruit school are up too.
But retention of current personnel is the biggest issue. And there are multiple factors which effect that. And no matter how many we recruit, until we stem the tide of those leaving the problem will remain. Because it will take a guy inducted today 10 years before he can replace my mate who quit today.
Well . . . I don't know if it would be to old . . . but reports have it that the Tripoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tripoli_%28LPH-10%29#Decommisioning)is still intact, afloat, and seaworthy.
My thinking on it is . . . if we have sea worthy, battle capable vessels that we're decomissioning . . . why not give them to some of our staunches allies?
For instance . . . the four remaining stricken Ticos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser)
My thinking on it is . . . if we have sea worthy, battle capable vessels that we're decomissioning . . . why not give them to some of our staunches allies?
For instance . . . the four remaining stricken Ticos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser)
Already offered, and the response was "thanks, but no thanks".
My thinking on it is . . . if we have sea worthy, battle capable vessels that we're decomissioning . . . why not give them to some of our staunches allies?
For instance . . . the four remaining stricken Ticos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser)
Already offered, and the response was "thanks, but no thanks".
Really? Why? Age of the vessels? When you can purchase a Arleigh Burke or Álvaro de Bazán offshoot? And why the Alvaro de Bazan offshoot rather then the Burke?
Jimbuna
09-07-07, 08:58 AM
My thinking on it is . . . if we have sea worthy, battle capable vessels that we're decomissioning . . . why not give them to some of our staunches allies?
For instance . . . the four remaining stricken Ticos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser)
Already offered, and the response was "thanks, but no thanks".
Really? Why? Age of the vessels? When you can purchase a Arleigh Burke or Álvaro de Bazán offshoot? And why the Alvaro de Bazan offshoot rather then the Burke?
Good point :hmm:
Besides US and AU just signed off a deal giving US access to Australian bases/storage facilites in return for some tricky next gen kit. Interestingly the latest gear for the F22 was included.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/howard-bush-to-sign-new-pact/2007/09/03/1188671802012.html
Don't want the old stuff give us the new toys please.:D
Jimbuna
09-07-07, 01:55 PM
Besides US and AU just signed off a deal giving US access to Australian bases/storage facilites in return for some tricky next gen kit. Interestingly the latest gear for the F22 was included.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/howard-bush-to-sign-new-pact/2007/09/03/1188671802012.html
Don't want the old stuff give us the new toys please.:D
That IT equipment they gave you looks a bit iffy :hmm:
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/9198/knackeredpciu5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
LMAO It still works better than the trucks they sell us...
http://www.afgha.com/?q=system/files/images/Damaged+Candian+G-Wagon.jpg
My thinking on it is . . . if we have sea worthy, battle capable vessels that we're decomissioning . . . why not give them to some of our staunches allies?
For instance . . . the four remaining stricken Ticos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser)
Already offered, and the response was "thanks, but no thanks".
Really? Why? Age of the vessels? When you can purchase a Arleigh Burke or Álvaro de Bazán offshoot? And why the Alvaro de Bazan offshoot rather then the Burke?
Yeah age, theres a reason they werre retired from the USN. They were old hulls, and just as importantly they were not equipped with VLS.
Also they are pretty manpower intensive.
And I believe they were seen as a risk to the new DDG proram, if we got the ticos it could delay, downsize, or even kill the air warfare destroyer program.
The first AWD should be in service in 6 years (from memory).
My thinking on it is . . . if we have sea worthy, battle capable vessels that we're decomissioning . . . why not give them to some of our staunches allies?
For instance . . . the four remaining stricken Ticos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser)
Already offered, and the response was "thanks, but no thanks".
Really? Why? Age of the vessels? When you can purchase a Arleigh Burke or Álvaro de Bazán offshoot? And why the Alvaro de Bazan offshoot rather then the Burke?
Yeah age, theres a reason they werre retired from the USN. They were old hulls, and just as importantly they were not equipped with VLS.
Also they are pretty manpower intensive.
And I believe they were seen as a risk to the new DDG proram, if we got the ticos it could delay, downsize, or even kill the air warfare destroyer program.
The first AWD should be in service in 6 years (from memory).
Yah, that was the reason why I saw that they retired them due to the fact that they didn't wish to upgrade them the the Mk41 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_Launching_System#Mk_41)VLS system . . . rather they have the Mk26 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_Missile_Launching_System) Rail System.
And I have to wonder, why is it that they have not decided to roll both these programs into one . . . a VLS armed Sea Control/Amphib Ship? With the decision to purchase the F-35B this would make it one of the most capable ships in the Southeast Asia/Oceania Region.
And I have to wonder, why is it that they have not decided to roll both these programs into one . . . a VLS armed Sea Control/Amphib Ship? With the decision to purchase the F-35B this would make it one of the most capable ships in the Southeast Asia/Oceania Region.
I think theres a few reasons for that. in no particular order
- too many eggs in one basket
- we need hulls in the water (the RAN is legally bound to more water than any other Navy on earth, that includes the USN)
- we woluld have the exact same capabilities by fielding two different ships, no real reason to combine thier roles, it wouldnt really bring down the manpower requirment by any useful margin
- it could turn into an design and building nightmare
- the ships size would have to be alot larger, which could pose problems in ops, port services, navigation
- we would have less flexibility to detail off assets to do jobs away from a main body. in any situation.
- having an ASW helo going from the amphib would up hangar space needed for the troop lifters and utility helos
Nobody fights alone. I really dont think combining roles is a workable idea, I can see the headaches Canada will have when its amphib/replenishment ships come on line.
Well here's my question . . . if you're going to fit RIM-166s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_RAM) . . . and RIM-162s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESSM) on these boats for light self defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system#Missile_systems) . . . why does it not make sence to replace these with Mk 57 or Mk 41 VLS. I mean the Tarawas had 5" guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-54_Mark_45#Variants)fitted when it was originally built.
bookworm_020
09-09-07, 08:46 PM
And I have to wonder, why is it that they have not decided to roll both these programs into one . . . a VLS armed Sea Control/Amphib Ship? With the decision to purchase the F-35B this would make it one of the most capable ships in the Southeast Asia/Oceania Region.
I think theres a few reasons for that. in no particular order
- too many eggs in one basket
- we need hulls in the water (the RAN is legally bound to more water than any other Navy on earth, that includes the USN)
- we woluld have the exact same capabilities by fielding two different ships, no real reason to combine thier roles, it wouldnt really bring down the manpower requirment by any useful margin
- it could turn into an design and building nightmare
- the ships size would have to be alot larger, which could pose problems in ops, port services, navigation
- we would have less flexibility to detail off assets to do jobs away from a main body. in any situation.
- having an ASW helo going from the amphib would up hangar space needed for the troop lifters and utility helos
Plus the fact that they need a large number of patrol boats for marine border patrol and fisheries protection up in northern Australia.
Having a coulpe of large ships means you need to give them escorts as well, which use up already slim resources that the navy already has.
Well isn't the reason to get a CVL or a LHD is not only for power projection . . . but also for the outreach that these platforms give to a navy. That is, with the right complement on aircraft . . . you can have multiple moderately ranged aircraft, with decent loiter times. For instance a mix of SH-71s, UV-22s, Sea King ASaC.7, and F-35s. This allows that one platform to cover more area with a relatively small number of crewmembers . . . as compared to an equal number of destroyer sized vessels.
Well isn't the reason to get a CVL or a LHD is not only for power projection . . . but also for the outreach that these platforms give to a navy. That is, with the right complement on aircraft . . . you can have multiple moderately ranged aircraft, with decent loiter times. For instance a mix of SH-71s, UV-22s, Sea King ASaC.7, and F-35s. This allows that one platform to cover more area with a relatively small number of crewmembers . . . as compared to an equal number of destroyer sized vessels.
it doesn't work like that.
Show me any ship launched aircraft on earth that can cover the pacific, indian & southern oceans and the arufura & timor seas at once and i'll buy you a beer.
Even if such a wonder did exist, there is so much you can and need to do with a hull in the water that an aircraft just wont deliver.
Hulls in the water, they are invaluable. Not every scenario where these ships (or any we, or anybosy else for that matter has) will be a hot war.
Well isn't the reason to get a CVL or a LHD is not only for power projection . . . but also for the outreach that these platforms give to a navy. That is, with the right complement on aircraft . . . you can have multiple moderately ranged aircraft, with decent loiter times. For instance a mix of SH-71s, UV-22s, Sea King ASaC.7, and F-35s. This allows that one platform to cover more area with a relatively small number of crewmembers . . . as compared to an equal number of destroyer sized vessels.
it doesn't work like that.
Show me any ship launched aircraft on earth that can cover the pacific, indian & southern oceans and the arufura & timor seas at once and i'll buy you a beer.
Even if such a wonder did exist, there is so much you can and need to do with a hull in the water that an aircraft just wont deliver.
Hulls in the water, they are invaluable. Not every scenario where these ships (or any we, or anybosy else for that matter has) will be a hot war.
I never said that it would cover the entire ocean . . . however, one CVL or LHA, with its embarked airwing, would be capable of monitoring a larger section of sea then 1-3 ships within a task force . . . and the reason for the V-22s and other medium ranged rotory aircraft is to provide for the ability loiter over vessels to provide for search/inspection boardings. I am not saying that all missions done by ships can be done by aircraft . . . however, I am saying isn't the reason for CVL or LHA purchases not only power projection, but their ability to effectively monitor a larger area then a small number of ships (say FF size) in a task force. . . . otherwise, why bother with a CVL in the first place . . . if all you need are conventional hulls with hangers that one can fit a Helo into?
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.