Does the RAN have any plans to get back in the carrier game?

[spazsinbad]

Does the RAN have any plans to get back into the carrier game? This question asked on another inappropriate thread but answered briefly with links to other threads with answers and of course there are answers to this very question scattered in other threads in this F-35 sub forum over many years. OMG I even started a thread long ago about it (stalking horse was used) go here for the original question but come back here for more answers but not from me.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=381130&hilit=Spaz#p381130

'me bref ansewer': viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=381141&hilit=answered#p381141

[spazsinbad]

Then there is this sad admission that the RAN looks to OTHERS for Air Defence at sea on transit or whatever. Sad Sad Sad.

AUSTRALIAN MARITIME OPERATIONS
Sep 2017 2nd Editon Sea Power Centre - Australia. Royal Australian Navy

PAGE Numbered 85 onwards: "...The risk of loss must be accepted as a part of the cost of conflict, however, it must also be kept in mind that warships are inherently resilient and designed to be placed in harm’s way. Resilience can be measured by the capacity of a warship to regain operational status after being damaged. The RAN’s main focus must therefore be on the competence and toughness of our people, so that we can rely on sensors and weapons being used to maximum effect.

The Role of Air Power in Achieving Sea Control
Air power has become a vital and integral facet of sea power but, apart from organic helicopters, very few navies can afford to carry their own air power with them. Although helicopters can offer significant capabilities in surface and underwater warfare, there is much that they cannot provide. The RAN, in particular, must rely on others to provide broad area air, surface and under-sea surveillance as well as any air combat capability for counter air or strike operations. In the event of working with multinational partners without embarked air power, however, an Australian maritime task group must necessarily rely on land-based air power.

There are several limitations associated with reliance on land-based air power. For operations away from the Australian mainland, ongoing air-to-air refuelling (AAR) or secure forward operating bases relatively close to the area of operations will be needed. Unfortunately the use of AAR to support aircraft beyond their unrefuelled range introduces an additional level of vulnerability while, even with such basing, assured air power will still only be available when the maritime operation enjoys a high priority for the allocation of resources. Without forward basing, the situation becomes even more problematic.

Moreover, the further aircraft have to transit from land bases and the more they will need to rely on AAR, the more they will be limited in the weapons and stores they can carry. This will affect both their time on task and their effectiveness while there. Responsiveness also becomes an issue, and the provision of a combat air patrol for a deployed maritime force is more challenging as the distance from land bases increases. The ability to respond immediately to a demand for air cover could be vital for the success of an operation and can depend on adequate threat warning. Such warning may itself depend on the availability of land-based surveillance aircraft.

A lack of available air power may, in some cases, greatly hinder or entirely compromise deployed operations. Without either surveillance or combat aircraft, or even both, surface forces must depend almost completely on their own resources. This implies a potential loss of warning time against low-flying threats and an associated dependence upon short-range detection and rapid reaction. Although the Hobart-class destroyers will have a reasonable capability to deal with such threats, particularly when networked with remote sensors, there are few of these vessels.

The absence of friendly tactical combat aircraft provides much greater freedom of action for an adversary’s air power. This translates into more thorough and accurate enemy surveillance and ultimately more attack options for an opposing force. Consequently, it also demands changes in the mode of operations for friendly surface forces, perhaps constraining where and how they operate. In extreme situations, surface operations may need to be curtailed....

...Gaining Sea Control in the Future
In considering the challenges to be faced in gaining sea control in the future, one must first question whether it will be needed. That is, will there still be a need to maintain freedom to use the sea as and when required?

Currently, there exists no feasible alternative to the use of sea transport to move the vast amounts of raw materials, energy and manufactured goods that continue to fuel the global economy.

The continued requirement for maritime power projection also appears assured, even if rarely in the form of large-scale contested amphibious landings. A flexible range of relevant capabilities are being developed in the ADF and, although it is not possible to predict how or whether these forces will be used in combat, recent experience suggests that there is a continued demand for the projection of power across the spectrum of operations. Whether sea control is contested in such future operations cannot be determined in advance, but having sea control is something that the ADF must never take for granted....

Then from page numbered 128 there is lots of stuff about AMPHIBIOUS OPERATIONS

Source: http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/fi ... s_2017.pdf (11Mb)

[sunstersun]

honestly most useful thing medium sized nations can do is spam subs, frigates and helicopter carriers.

[white_lightning35]

honestly most useful thing medium sized nations can do is spam subs, frigates and helicopter carriers.

Useful for whom? Themselves, or a broader coalition? Each nation has different requirements that stem from unique circumstances. The UK has a requirement for independent power projection, so they built two carriers. Whether or not that was wise remains to be seen. Japan does not require those things, and it's military priorities reflect that. I do not know what ADF requirements are, but I don't think anyone knowledgeable would believe that viewing the defense of Australia is given by policing concentric circles around the continent.

Regarding the RAN, it would be foolish to get a carrier without thinking about the broader picture, which is a mistake I think the Brits made. The AWD's seem like a very nice addition to the fleet, but will they be spread too thin? Covering the LHD's, carriers, and others, while possibly providing ballistic missile defense is quite the task. Luckily it isn't up to me to figure this out.

Like it or not, BMD will probably be outsourced to the USN, unless the entire fleet is rendered useless by collisions. I don't know if there is the appetite to get more AWD's. However, some of the other frigates are gaining more missile defense capabilities, I believe. The submarine program is also ambitious, so there will hopefully be a robust offensive capability in the future. If the sub replacement decision was the right one is an entirely different matter.

[Corsair1963]

Best option for the RAN would be a acquire a modest number of F-35B's for the Canberra Class LHD's. Which, could provide Air Cover for the Fleet and CAS Mission for the Troops going ashore. These Aircraft could be operated by the RAAF and perform a number of roles. (Martime & Landbased)

[spazsinbad]

See the full quote at top of this page however the RAN is not interested in Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs - does anyone get this?

"...The Role of Air Power in Achieving Sea Control
Air power has become a vital and integral facet of sea power but, apart from organic helicopters, very few navies can afford to carry their own air power with them. Although helicopters can offer significant capabilities in surface and underwater warfare, there is much that they cannot provide. The RAN, in particular, must rely on others to provide broad area air, surface and under-sea surveillance as well as any air combat capability for counter air or strike operations. In the event of working with multinational partners without embarked air power, however, an Australian maritime task group must necessarily rely on land-based air power...."

Give Australia an unlimited amount of money and personnel and sure they MIGHT want organic ship air power. Anyone?

[Corsair1963]

See the full quote at top of this page however the RAN is not interested in Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs - does anyone get this?

"...The Role of Air Power in Achieving Sea Control
Air power has become a vital and integral facet of sea power but, apart from organic helicopters, very few navies can afford to carry their own air power with them. Although helicopters can offer significant capabilities in surface and underwater warfare, there is much that they cannot provide. The RAN, in particular, must rely on others to provide broad area air, surface and under-sea surveillance as well as any air combat capability for counter air or strike operations. In the event of working with multinational partners without embarked air power, however, an Australian maritime task group must necessarily rely on land-based air power...."

Give Australia an unlimited amount of money and personnel and sure they MIGHT want organic ship air power. Anyone?

We just don't believe it.....Like saying Japan has no interest in Aircraft Carriers.

[Corsair1963]

Personally, I believe Australia will acquire the F-35B's for the Canberra Class LHD's. Yet, at this stage we just don't know when.....(i.e. 5, 10, or 15 years)


"IMHO"

[spazsinbad]

Who is 'we'? How about saying it is just 'YOU'? You will know about it when the RAN becomes interested in Oz F-35Bs etc.

[Corsair1963]

Who is 'we'? How about saying it is just 'YOU'? You will know about it when the RAN becomes interested in Oz F-35Bs etc.

Not like I am the only one to speculate that the RAN will acquire the F-35B at some future point. Nonetheless, I was just expressing my personal opinion. Which, I made clear....


How I see it for what it's worth!

1.) Governments (administration) change and so to do Defense Plans.

2.) The Australian Government still plans on acquiring the full 100 F-35's. So, they could acquire F-35B's just as easily as more F-35A's.

3.) A number of Australia's Allies will operate the Juan Carlos (BPE) LHD combined with the F-35B. This will show the benefits of the two. While, providing a level of envy among the Australian Defense Forces.

4.) The F-35B would share considerable amounts of Logistics, Training, Maintenance, Support, etc. etc. with the F-35A. Making the acquisition far less painful than a totally different type.

Honestly, I could go on and on.....

[sunstersun]

It simply wouldn't be worth it for Australia.

[popcorn]

Psrhaps bewt wait for the next Defence White Paper??

[Corsair1963]

It simply wouldn't be worth it for Australia.

How is that???

[Corsair1963]

Psrhaps bewt wait for the next Defence White Paper??

Yes, defense plans change all of the time! Let's not forget that China has an aggressive Carrier Program. Plus, the fact that the RAN only has a modest Surface Fleet of Destroyers (just three) and Frigates. (nine)

[neptune]

....when the RAN becomes interested in Oz F-35Bs ....Not like I am the only one to speculate that the RAN will...or will not!..,,Honestly, I could go on and on.....

....while the "jump jet" world waits for the QE to take on the "Bee"' the Aussies have commissioned their Canberras, the Spainish are waiting to watch the QE, and the Turks are building their ship for the "Bee"; and....the others, the Corp has deployed the "Bee" to Japan and is waiting for the Wasp to arrive for boarding. That operation should begin to "Gin up" the operation info, all parties should be scrambling to share. Whether the Aussies breakdown and buy a "Bee" or two, the application of a shipboard, forward deployed Litenen is going to intrigue the "Hel." Out of those in the "Bee" business. Integrating the ISR data into their AWACS is going give them great insite in their AOI. Couple that with the P-8A and Triton data and it should give the Aussies and the others a great view over their waters of interest. The "Aye" has great range until you compare it to a "Bee" on a ship!