Torpedoing distance? Onslow got to within 300 meters of the Carl Vinson at RIMPAC 98. That's closer than torpedo shot range. At that range against an aircraft carrier, you couldn't possibly miss.
Australia get's HMS Hermes
- Thread starter abc123
- Start date
Torpedoing distance? Onslow got to within 300 meters of the Carl Vinson at RIMPAC 98. That's closer than torpedo shot range. At that range against an aircraft carrier, you couldn't possibly miss.
abc123
Banned
Intresting.
So, if something like that happens ( Canada buying Eagle ) is it possible to use Hornets from Eagle?
Could that mean that UK later also uses Hornet?
On the other hand, if we look at the prices of new carrier, the price of CVA-01 ( carrier vessel only ) should have been about 100 millions of 1965 pounds. In 1983 money that's about 450 millions of pounds. UK, on the other hand, constructed Incincible class for about 220 millions of pounds per vessel.
Isn't it wiser and more useful for Australia ( or Canada ) to have 2 Invincible class ships ( that can carry inferior aircraft like Harrier- in comparison to Hornet, and inferior AEW ) but can also serve as LPH and have much greater operational availability than single real carrier ( and I doubt that cost of that new-built carrier would be less than cost of CVA-01 in 1965 ).
Last edited:
A more affordable carrier would be the modified SCS design that Bazan built for the Spanish Navy (Principe de Austras). AV-8Bs, SH-3s (or SH-60s now), and it's a very dependable platform. Or buy a Garibaldi-class from Italy.
The Garibaldi suffers from similar limitations as the Invincibles, it doesn`t carry a large enough air group but does carry superfluous heavy weapons, Sea darts in the Invincibles and Otomats in the Garibaldi.
The Principe de Asturias carries a larger airgroup and is simpler (cheaper). It would be the perfect ship to replace Melbourne in the 80s.
The Principe de Asturias carries a larger airgroup and is simpler (cheaper). It would be the perfect ship to replace Melbourne in the 80s.
Probably only one for starters, our amphibious capability was woefully underdeveloped in the 70s and 80s, so we won`t be getting 2 so we can use one as an LPH.
That sort of thing is where Australia is a potential AH goldmine, and handful of cheaparse amphibious ships transform Australias from an ally who adds ships to fleets to a power which can act on its own.
That sort of thing is where Australia is a potential AH goldmine, and handful of cheaparse amphibious ships transform Australias from an ally who adds ships to fleets to a power which can act on its own.
abc123
Banned
Is 6 Adelaide class frigates enough for air defence and protection of one/two small carriers like Garibaldi or Principe de Asturias?
Also, can someone said something about amphibious capacity of these carriers if used as LPH?
Last edited:
If the British built a fourth (and possibly fifth) Invincible-class ship for the Australians, the price is going to drop a tad lower. That is, if the British start building it in 1981 when the Ark Royal is finished. It also seems the most likely option.
However, that means the British somehow need to want to keep all three previously built Invincibles before the Falklands.
Wouldn't a CVL be a lously LPH?
Just like an LPH is a lousy CVL.
Again we hit the potential goldmine. The FFGs were a replacement for a cancelled Australian designed DDG which would have had 2-1/2 guidence channels for the Standard missile instead of the 1-1/2 channels of the FFGs. A pair of these ships could engage 4 or 5 targets simultaneously, wheres a pair of FFGs could engage 2 or 3.
Any flat-top carrier can be used as an LPH, the USS Nimitz was used to launch the 8 RH53Ds on Op Eagle Claw. However a purpose designed LPH will have accomodation for the embarked troops to stay long-term and design features like double-width walkways to get troops out to the flight deck quickly so helicopters can launch together. But since Australia isn`t likely to send a full battalion on months-long deployments a Principe de Asturias would stand in for a reasonable LPH if backed by a couple of LSTs or whatever.
Any flat-top carrier can be used as an LPH, the USS Nimitz was used to launch the 8 RH53Ds on Op Eagle Claw. However a purpose designed LPH will have accomodation for the embarked troops to stay long-term and design features like double-width walkways to get troops out to the flight deck quickly so helicopters can launch together. But since Australia isn`t likely to send a full battalion on months-long deployments a Principe de Asturias would stand in for a reasonable LPH if backed by a couple of LSTs or whatever.
abc123
Banned
So you think that Principe is cheaper than Invincible class?
They allready had 3 Perth class destroyers, so 3 new destroyers could be built/bought from USA? Maybe Kidd class?
A new Principe de Asturias would be cheaper than a new Invincible even if the Invincible was stripped of the Sea Dart system and other superfluous stuff. As a rule of thumb the structure of a ship is 1/4 of the total price, propulsion is 1/4 and sensors/weapons etc 1/2. The PdA has 2 GTs and a single shaft whereas the I had 4 GTs and 2 shafts, so the propulsion 1/4 of the PdAs price will be half that of I because it only has half the machinery. Similarly the cost of the Sea Dart drives the cost of the I up considerably while reducing the effectiveness of the ship in its primary role of carrying aircraft.
But of course we weren`t offered a new I, we were offered a surplus ship at half price which overcame all of our reasons for rejecting it in open competition with other ship classes.
But of course we weren`t offered a new I, we were offered a surplus ship at half price which overcame all of our reasons for rejecting it in open competition with other ship classes.
La Rouge Beret
Donor
Entirely correct at this time we had the Perth class destroyers for fourteen years, one of the big issues that we required was an improved shooter to guard the flat top. The Kidd class were offered to Australia in the 80's and the late 90's to modernise our fleet. Perhaps in exchange for buying the Kidd class to improved our AAW capability within the fleet, we could assist with developing AEGIS with the USN. Potentially introducing a capability that we will not have until we commission the Hobart class in a couple of years.
My only concern with two carriers is the size of the FAA that we would have to maintain. However it would make the RAN quite significant within the region and in maintaining two carriers would provide the Australian government a capability that they had not had since they operated Sydney and Vengeance in the 50's.
Assuming something like 75-80% availability we`d only have both ships in commision half the time so I`m guessing the FAA wouldn`t have to be much if any bigger than it was in the 70s in terms of airframe numbers. Obviously the Trackers would be replaced by ASW and AEW Sea Kings, while the Wessex could be replaced by troop carrying Sea Kings. A buy of 20-25 assorted Sea Kings should do the trick. One carrier could be operating up north while the second one when it is in commision could be used as a training ship for ships crews and aircrews.
I'm seeing everyone going for the Harrier carriers, which are potentially useful, but I still think that a similar type of ship to the Clemenceau class would work better. You don't have to immediately replace the aircraft (which you would have to do with a Harrier carrier option - you can't use Trackers or Skyhawks on those) and you get more capable airplanes out of the argument if you do purchase fighters. The Clemenceau could (and did) land Hornets of the USN in exercises. And beyond that, if Australia didn't want to pay the money for Hornets, they could use ex-USN Phantoms (RAAF pilots used borrowed F-4s in the early 70s while waiting for their F-111s and loved them) or French carrier aircraft.
The Principe de Austurias is a good little design, but that is also a problem - its not more capable than the Melbourne, and for the money it costs to build a carrier fleet, you probably don't wanna go down in capability - then, what's the point?
The Principe de Austurias is a good little design, but that is also a problem - its not more capable than the Melbourne, and for the money it costs to build a carrier fleet, you probably don't wanna go down in capability - then, what's the point?
We lost 5 Skyhawks in the last 3 years of carrier ops off Melbourne, I think 3 in 1980 alone, we only had 10 out of the original 20 left when we sold them to the Kiwis in 1984. So our aircraft fleet will need replenishing in any event.
I don`t believe that the RAN FAA can operate much more than a Skyhawk or Harrier without skewing the force structure of the ADF too much the wrong way. Our Hornets cost $54 million each in the late 80s, if the FAA got in on the production run and bought a handful that would balloon its budget right out. Whats more a bigger ship will need more men and cost more to operate than the Melbourne or a PdA which again with distort our force structure the wrong way.
I don`t believe that the RAN FAA can operate much more than a Skyhawk or Harrier without skewing the force structure of the ADF too much the wrong way. Our Hornets cost $54 million each in the late 80s, if the FAA got in on the production run and bought a handful that would balloon its budget right out. Whats more a bigger ship will need more men and cost more to operate than the Melbourne or a PdA which again with distort our force structure the wrong way.
La Rouge Beret
Donor
I concur with Riain on this point, unless we have an expansion of the RAN we would have found it difficult to man a larger carrier and protect her adequately. A similar analogy would be the issues facing the present RN with the numbers of AWD Type 45 vs the cost of the Queen Elizabeth class carrier.
Additionally the RAN was structured to secure the SLOCs throughout the Indian ocean and to a lesser extent those in the Pacific with the assistance of the RNZN and USN. The primary adversary was the Soviet SSK and SSN, with their forward presence out of Cam Ranh bay. So being able to have an organic CAP over our fleet is advantageous for our mobility issues, freeing up the larger American carriers for more important roles.
Additionally the RAN was structured to secure the SLOCs throughout the Indian ocean and to a lesser extent those in the Pacific with the assistance of the RNZN and USN. The primary adversary was the Soviet SSK and SSN, with their forward presence out of Cam Ranh bay. So being able to have an organic CAP over our fleet is advantageous for our mobility issues, freeing up the larger American carriers for more important roles.
abc123
Banned
IMO, it would be the most important to determin the role of carriers for Australia.
The most probable role is intervention in small Pacific countries northeast from Australia ( like Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Fiji, East Timor ) in case of coup ( imposing democracy ), civil war ( imposing peace ) or evacuation of Australian citizens.
For such duties, you don't need a large CTOL carrier. Even a small air group of 6 Harriers, 10 Sea King ( transport version ) and 2 Sea King ( SAR version ) will be enough for that. OFC, airgroup can be tailored, so that attack helicopters from Army can be taken instead of Harriers etc.
Second role is taking part in coalition efforts. Like say intervention against Iraq. There such carrier, with airgroup of dozen Harriers and few Sea King ( SAR ) and few Sea King ( ASW ) can do the trick, that is- show that Australia is there, not play main role in war.
Third role is, securing sealanes. In modern day's that's something like fighting against piracy in Horn of Africa. There you don't need Harriers at all. A few Sea Kings ( transport ) and few Sea Kings ( SAR ) is enough.
Another similar role is- ASW. There you also can play a good role with 10 ASW Sea Kings, 4-6 Harriers ( for air protection, if nescesarry ) and few Sea Kings ( SAR and AEW ).
Fourth role is- combat intervention. The only situation that is imaginable to me is preventing Indonesian invasion of E. Timor. There small carrier can play some role, but can't be decisive weapon. Nontheless, if oponent isn't too advanced ( and Indonesia isn't ) it can be very useful.
Attacks on Cam Ranh and so, are IMO, clearly out of level ( and also out of interest ) of Australia ( to do it alone, without USA, so clearly US carriers should be nescesarry for that, but Australia can give a hand there, as said in role No. 2 )
So, IMO, two small carriers like Garibaldi, Invincible or Principe de Asturias are just enough for needs of Australia.
If we assume that they have operational availability of say, 65%, that's one carrier allwasy ready, and another ready 30% of time. If both are ready, one can be on sea, and another in port, ready to take LPH role, or in training etc. If only one is ready, his airgroup can be tailored that he can serve as aircraft carrier, LPH or big logistical vessel.
The most probable role is intervention in small Pacific countries northeast from Australia ( like Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Fiji, East Timor ) in case of coup ( imposing democracy ), civil war ( imposing peace ) or evacuation of Australian citizens.
For such duties, you don't need a large CTOL carrier. Even a small air group of 6 Harriers, 10 Sea King ( transport version ) and 2 Sea King ( SAR version ) will be enough for that. OFC, airgroup can be tailored, so that attack helicopters from Army can be taken instead of Harriers etc.
Second role is taking part in coalition efforts. Like say intervention against Iraq. There such carrier, with airgroup of dozen Harriers and few Sea King ( SAR ) and few Sea King ( ASW ) can do the trick, that is- show that Australia is there, not play main role in war.
Third role is, securing sealanes. In modern day's that's something like fighting against piracy in Horn of Africa. There you don't need Harriers at all. A few Sea Kings ( transport ) and few Sea Kings ( SAR ) is enough.
Another similar role is- ASW. There you also can play a good role with 10 ASW Sea Kings, 4-6 Harriers ( for air protection, if nescesarry ) and few Sea Kings ( SAR and AEW ).
Fourth role is- combat intervention. The only situation that is imaginable to me is preventing Indonesian invasion of E. Timor. There small carrier can play some role, but can't be decisive weapon. Nontheless, if oponent isn't too advanced ( and Indonesia isn't ) it can be very useful.
Attacks on Cam Ranh and so, are IMO, clearly out of level ( and also out of interest ) of Australia ( to do it alone, without USA, so clearly US carriers should be nescesarry for that, but Australia can give a hand there, as said in role No. 2 )
So, IMO, two small carriers like Garibaldi, Invincible or Principe de Asturias are just enough for needs of Australia.
If we assume that they have operational availability of say, 65%, that's one carrier allwasy ready, and another ready 30% of time. If both are ready, one can be on sea, and another in port, ready to take LPH role, or in training etc. If only one is ready, his airgroup can be tailored that he can serve as aircraft carrier, LPH or big logistical vessel.
The proposals for Melbourne to do a tour of Vietnam were made in 1966 and 1967, before the Skyhawk had entered service. Either way I think a combat tour would have been helpful to provide a Cold War role for Melbourne and her replacement.
abc123
Banned
Well, could he go in Vietnam a few years later in 1969 or 1970?
As shakedown cruise for new aircrafts.