Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

bd popeye said:

Tasman..I think you feel the AUS Military as a whole is to small. Am I correct??

If you do let me ask you this..If you could Command the RAN how would you as it's commander configure it?..IF you had the proper funding! Specfically with aircraft carriers, LHDs etc..Thanks!!

Click to expand...

You are correct Popeye. I do think the ADF is too small. The army is stretched to the limit with overseas deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq, Timor Leste, The Solomons, etc. At present it lacks attack helos and self propelled artillery and has to rely on the Dutch to provide this in Afghanistan. RAAF transport assets are flat out and the RAN's amphibious ships and frigates are on constant rotation to trouble spots. The navy is short of helicopters thanks to the failure to replace the Sea King fleet before age and attrition has reduced its available size along with the failure of the Seasprite program which has left only 16 Seahawks to provide flights for the 4 Adelaide class FFGs and 8 Anzac class FFH's.

There are bright spots. These include:

- the rapid acquisition of C-17's and FA-18F Super Hornets for the RAAF, and plans for the F-35A and (probably) P-8A,
- the naval construction program of 3 new air warfare destroyers (with a fourth likely), 2 highly capable LHD's, and plans being brought forward for a new generation of submarines, and
- the rapid acquisition of M1A1 tanks along with orders for MRH-90 and Tiger armed recce helos and plans for more Chinooks and the acquisition of SP artillery for the army.

I will give some thought to your question as to how I would configure the RAN given sufficient funding and I'll post it as soon as possible.

Cheers

Tas

Fixed wing aviation and the Royal Australian Navy.

As mentioned earlier in this thread it is now twenty five years since the last RAN aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, was decommissioned. Within a very short time the fixed wing squadrons had been disbanded and the FAA became a helicopter only force. Responsibility for the air defence of the fleet was passed to the RAAF. The RAAF also took over responsibility for the fleet support role, providing aircraft for air defence training, etc. The long range maritime reconnaissance role had always been an RAAF responsibility so this aspect remained unchanged. One of the side effects of the loss of its organic fixed wing aviation has been the fact that the leadership of the RAN is now made up of people who have come through a ‘small ship’ navy (frigates, patrol boats and submarines). The value of helicopters is appreciated but the flexibility provided by organic fighter aircraft seems to be less well understood.

Given the necessary budget I would love to see fixed wing aircraft back at sea to ensure that air cover is available to the fleet when and where it is needed.

The current Defence Capability Plan (DCP) will provide the following fleet by 2017:

3 Hobart class air warfare destroyers
8 Anzac class frigates
2 Canberra class LHDs
6 Collins class submarines
14 Armidale class patrol boats
6 Huon class mine warfare vessels

Depending on available manpower several of the upgraded FFG’s may also still be available.

Other units will include:

2 replenishment ships (1 AOR and 1 AO)
1 sealift ship
2 hydrographic survey ships
Plus a number of smaller amphibious, hydrographic and support craft

The FAA should have:

16 Seahawks
11 Seasprites
6 MRH-90s

Working in co-operation with the fleet is the customs arm of the civilian Border Protection Command (BPC) which will operate:

10 Dash 8 aircraft
3 helicopters
8 Australian customs vessels (ACVs)
2 chartered ocean patrol vessels

I would like to see the following (naval related) additions to the DCP (2007/2017):

1. Confirmation of orders for a fourth Hobart class destroyer and a third Canberra class LHD.
2. Confirmation of a new submarine class of 8 large conventional submarines to replace the Collins class (the two extra would enable a return to the permanent basing of submarines on the East Coast as well as the squadron at Fleet Base West). These would join the fleet in the early 2020’s.
3. Order 24 F-35B Lightning II aircraft to equip a joint RAAF/RAN squadron to provide detachments for air defence, strike and also close air support for troops embarked in the LHDs. These would be additional to the 4 RAAF squadrons of F-35As. Eventually I would like the F-35B squadron to become an RAN squadron but initially it would need to be an RAAF or joint RAAF/RAN squadron.
4. Order 6 additional MRH-90 helos for the RAN so that a flight of naval MRH-90 helos can be permanently embarked on each LHD.
5. Replace the Seasprite/Seahawk force with a single type.
6. Confirm orders for approx 12-16 P-8A Poseidon and 6-8 Global Hawk type UAVs for the RAAF maritime force.
7. Increase the army’s CH-47 Chinook force to 12 by ordering 6 ‘Fs’.
8. Replace the charted ocean patrol vessels operated by Customs with purpose built vessels.
9. Order a class (4-6) naval OPVs to support the Armidales and relieve frigates from this role. The design could be a better armed version of the Customs vessels.
10. Replace the Customs ACVs with a larger design (perhaps a more lightly armed version of the navy’s Armidale class).

When HMAS Melbourne was in service the RAN pioneered the tailored airgroup concept (as now used by the RN). Various combinations of Skyhawk, Tracker, Sea King and Wessex aircraft and helos were trialled for particular scenarios. In the same way I would like to see flexibility and imagination in the way the LHDs are used.

With three LHDs in commission there would usually be two available at any one time (perhaps all three in an emergency surge).

The LHDs should each be able to comfortably embark at least 18 helicopters in normal amphibious configuration. I would envisage a standard aviation complement might include 2 naval MRH-90s for utility work and 2 naval Seasprites or Seahawks for self defence against submarines or small fast attack craft. For amphibious operations I would envisage one ship embarking 8 army MRH-90s and 6 army Tiger armed reconnaissance helos (ARHs) whilst a second would embark 8 army MRH-90s and 6 F-35Bs from the joint RAN/RAAF squadron. If the third LHD was available to embark the F-35Bs the trooplift component could be increased and army Chinooks could also be embarked.

In a surge operation the third LHD could deploy in a sea control role with an aviation complement of (say) 14 F-35Bs and 4 Seahawks.

What I have outlined would, IMHO, greatly strengthen the RAN, especially its organic aviation capability, but is not an ‘over the top' pipedream.

The joint F-35B squadron would get fixed wing aircraft back to sea and would enable the development of the skills in this area that would lead to the RAN eventually regaining control of this asset. This would provide a sound base from which the RAN could eventually get back into the aircraft carrier business in the years ahead.

Whilst I am not a fan of a ‘one carrier navy’ the availability of a Canberra class LHD to act as a ‘stand in’ whilst a carrier is in extended maintenance (in the same way that Spain plans for the Armada) eases my concerns somewhat. However, I would want to be certain that funding and manpower would be sufficient to enable two carriers to eventually be acquired, (together with the additional escorts that would be necessary), before I would order the first. If the decision was made to go this way I think that the RN’s Queen Elizabeth class has much to offer!

Tas

Tasman, what about a Cavour or something like the Japanese Hyuga class ship for the RAN? Especially for anti-submarine work.

trainedmonkey said:

Tasman, what about a Cavour or something like the Japanese Hyuga class ship for the RAN? Especially for anti-submarine work.

Click to expand...

The RAN's previous experience with the operation of Majestic and Colossus class CVL's demonstrated the shortcomings of small carriers, hence my preference for something along the lines of the Queen Elizabeth class. Despite their large size the QE's will have a crew that is much smaller than the former RAN carriers but will provide highly flexible options in the size and composition of their airgroups.

The Japanese Hyuga would not be able to carry the fixed wing aircraft that I believe the RAN needs but a Cavour type would make a worthwhile addition as it could embark a reasonable general purpose airgroup and complement the LHD's. I will be very interested in the design eventually chosen by Spain to follow on Principe de Asturias . The RAN is establishing a close link with the Spanish Armada and commonality with a new carrier might be a logical way to go. My expectation is that the next Spanish carrier will be along the lines of Cavour in size and concept rather than something the size of the CVF.

At this stage I think that Australia needs a carrier that can provide fleet air defence, act in a strike role and provide air support for the amphibious force, more than it needs a specialist ASW carrier. Way back in the 1960's and 70's when there was a much greater submarine threat than is now the case and political moves were made to turn Melbourne into a purely ASW carrier the RAN fought hard and successfully to maintain an air defence and strike capability. All RAN frigates embark ASW helicopters and the navy will also be able to embark ASW helicopters on the LHD's if necessary. The real need for a dedicated carrier (or preferably two) in the RAN is to enable fighter aircraft to be deployed at sea.

My first choice for a new RAN carrier, based on currently available designs, would be the Queen Elizabeth class CVF. If that was to prove too expensive to build and operate my next choice would be an Australianised Cavour, perhaps in collaboration with Spain.

Tas

Thanks for your response Tas! Excellent. I agree with much of what you say. I for one would love to see the RAN with 3-4 LHDs..

Replace the Seasprite/Seahawk force with a single type.

Click to expand...

It's hard to believe the RAN is still operating Seasprites. I was in a Seaspriet squadron, HSL-31, from 1977- 1980. And to think the RAN is still flying them around. We called them a "Hooky-two"..Why? I don't know. It may have something to do with that the Seasprite started life as a single engine helo anf the second enging was added to give more lift & speed.

I just hope the RAN gets it two LHDs.

bd popeye said:

Thanks for your response Tas! Excellent. I agree with much of what you say. I for one would love to see the RAN with 3-4 LHDs..



It's hard to believe the RAN is still operating Seasprites. I was in a Seaspriet squadron, HSL-31, from 1977- 1980. And to think the RAN is still flying them around. We called them a "Hooky-two"..Why? I don't know. It may have something to do with that the Seasprite started life as a single engine helo anf the second enging was added to give more lift & speed.

I just hope the RAN gets it two LHDs.

Click to expand...

The Seasprites are not actually flying at the present time. The Seasprite program is probably one of the greatest fiascos in Australian defence procurement of all time.

The Seasprite project dates back to the early 1990s when the navy wanted a helicopter for a proposed Offshore Patrol Combatant, a joint Australia-Malaysia program to equip both navies with a smaller warship that could carry a helicopter. But the OPC project was abandoned after the Malaysians pulled out. At this stage, defence could have axed the project but the Seasprites were then earmarked for the RAN's new Anzac-class frigates. This was despite the fact the navy's Seahawk helicopter, already in service with the FFG-type frigates, could be deployed on the Anzac-class.

Deliveries of the 11 Seasprites were to have begun in late 2000 and been completed by August 2001. Unlike New Zealand, who ordered new Seasprites at the same time, the RAN decided on buying refurbished ex USN machines, some of which date back to the Vietnam war. The airframes were to be 'zero timed' and fitted with advanced sensors. The navy also decided to fit sophisticated computer software to enable the helos to operate with a crew of just two. Problems with the software integration have now led to the grounding of the helos.

The navy was flying the Seasprites in an interim or training capability from 2004. But they were unable to embark at sea or land and launch from ships.

Millions of man hours and $1 billion later, serious problems with the integration of the Seasprite's avionics and combat systems have led to an end to operational flying. At this stage it looks like several more years will pass before the helos finally become operational.

The RAN is between a rock and a hard plate re the Seasprite. Having already spent $AU1 billion they are reluctant to cancel the helo at this stage. I suspect it will go into service for a short period, perhaps with some restrictions placed on it, but will be replaced ASAP when the RAN decide on its follow on helo to the very successful Seahawk. It is planned to replace both the Seahawk and the Seasprite with the same helicopter, possibly the naval version of the NH-90 to provide some commonality with the trooplift and utility helos already on order for operation from the LHDs.

Tas

I'd like to see the UK building ASW helo destroyers for the RN after the Type 45 run is finished. With a towed array and 4-6 ASW Merlins they would make excellent ASW escort carriers. They could escort convoys, amphibious battle groups or carrier battle groups. The F-35b capability is nice to have , but secondary to the ASW role. I don't think the Japanese see these as light carriers and they are unlikely to see F-35b, even as organic CAP.

Humm?? Seems HMS Illustrious had a minor breakdown at the start of her Indian Ocean deployment.

Honestly these sort of things do happen to warships. No big deal really..

A FAULTY meat fridge is forcing a Royal Navy aircraft carrier to return to base today just two days after setting off for the Indian Ocean.

HMS Illustrious departed from Portsmouth Naval Base on Monday to head the multi-national Task Group Orion 08 which will be carrying out exercises and diplomatic visits during the next four months in the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean.

Navy spokesman Anton Hanney said a refrigeration unit used to store meat on the warship had been found to be in danger of breaking down.

He explained: "She has a minor problem with her refrigeration unit. It hasn't broken down but because she is off the south coast, the sensible thing is for her to come in and get that fixed before she goes off again.

"It wouldn't be prudent for her to go off with the chance of the unit breaking down while she was in warmer climates and then engineers would have to be flown out to her to fix it.

"It will not delay her programme in any significant way, she will be able to make up 24 hours without a problem."

Mr Hanney said Illustrious was likely to undergo the repairs at Portsmouth this afternoon before heading off again tomorrow.

Orion 08, which incorporates more than 2,500 personnel, 13 ships, a nuclear-powered submarine and fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft is aimed at boosting peace and stability in the area by exercising with a number of navies in the region.

During its deployment, the Task Group will be visiting 20 ports in the Mediterranean, Africa, Middle East, South Asia and the Far East.

A navy spokesman said: "The deployment is part of the Royal Navy's regular operating pattern, repeating a similar deployment to the Indian Ocean in 2006.

"It will exercise deploying a maritime strike force for a prolonged period away from the home base and working with allies."

Click to expand...

This didn't surprise anyone who lives on the south coast of england. The callout charge for a plumber round here could break the already strained defence budget...

Obi Wan Russell said:

This didn't surprise anyone who lives on the south coast of england. The callout charge for a plumber round here could break the already strained defence budget...

Click to expand...

Now that's funny Obi Wan! Glad to see you are still around the forum!

I don't know how the RN conducts pre-deployment inspections and test but maybe this is something that should have been caught before deploying..Just my opinion.

Trust me this sort of breakdown has occuried with the USN..