The French 'Mistral' class LHD-one of the 2 main contenders.
Posted on 03/14/2005 7:41:05 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Navy planning for two new aircraft carriers
March 14, 2005
SECRET discussions have been held with ship builders about equipping two large new Australian warships with fighter aircraft.
The Royal Australian Navy plans to buy two $800 million, 25,000 tonne amphibious ships by 2010.
A push is under way to give the vessels the capacity to carry eight or more so-called short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) fighters.
The aircraft would cost about $6 million more than the $70 million price tag for the conventional joint strike fighters (JSF) being purchased for the RAAF.
The Government wants to buy up to 100 of the yet to be built next generation fighters in a $15 billion project.
According to industry sources there would be no problem having the final 20 or so coming off the STOVL production line.
Such a move would give the RAN an aircraft carrier capability for the first time since HMAS Melbourne was retired in 1982.
Two designs are being considered for the ship contract.
The already built Mistral Class from the French partnership of DCN-Armaris and the BPE from Spain's navy shipbuilder Navantia which will be built in late 2008.
It is understood the talks have focused on issues such as deck strength and space for the aircraft.
Defence stressed that there was no "existing" plan to equip the ships to carry STOVL aircraft.
"The STOVL JSF is not included in the DCP [Defence Capability Plan]," a defence spokesman said.
However The Daily Telegraph has been told that discussions have been held with at least one builder about requirements to operate STOVL versions of the JSF.
"There is a small group in [the] navy pushing for some form of STOVL capability on the ships," a well placed source said.
"They want to buy about 20 STOVL versions of the JSF to provide extended military reach."
The French 'Mistral' class LHD-one of the 2 main contenders.
ping!!
There was a thread the other day about the US preparing to get rid of a carrier...was it the Kennedy?
Maybe the Aussies would like to take over payments on that bad boy?
I think if Australia were to buy a big carrier like that,it would end up being a liability than asset.It's about 5 times bigger than anything they have now & the manpower & material costs would be just too high by their standards.It makes sense to stick to the medium multi-role ship concept-Japan is doing the same.Only India,South Korea & China are the ones intent on dedicated carriers.Besides the Kennedy is pushing 40-it would be highly uneconomical if they were to operate it for just 10 years or so.
Australia,Canada,India & Brazil among others brought their first carriers from Britain.Australia & Canada have been out of the carrier business for a while now.
We got a few aircraft carriers laying around decommissioned. Why don't we sell them one and let them convert it? It's not a nuke, so the greenies won't freak.
It was a joke, referencing the recent Canadian experience buying used submarines from the UK.
Each of those American carriers are probably bigger in displacement than all current Australian naval ships put together!!!Those logistical hassles along with their advanced age makes the chances of such a deal very slim.
No. Too big, too old, too rundown, and isn't designed for amphibious purposes. Australia can buy new for less money than it would take to bring the JFK up to speed.
Canada has been out of the military business for a while now.
They should at least consider the American designs although the Tarawa and Wasp classes are significantly larger than the French design. The flight deck is about 70 meters longer, and the displacement is about double. The LDH 8 design has significant improvements over the existing Wasp class. It would give far more capability than the French design.
I agree-the US Ships are bigger & better than the French & Spanish variants being offered.The problem is that the Australian defence forces are not exactly soaking in cash.
There was an article on strategypage.com explaining exactly why nobody is interested in buying big old US carriers.
They're looking for a Harrier-Carrier, I think.
Problem is, you always need two - just in case something goes wrong on one and you have to land the airborne assets in a hurry.
As I recall, that catamaran high speed cargo ship the navy likes was made in Australia. Perhaps a little bartaring could benefit both sides. The US Navy doesn't want, but does need a few Collins class subs as well.
No, F-35s in the US Marine/Royal Navy variant. I think they've already ordered F-35s in the USAF variant, so they would either switch out some of the planes already ordered, or add a dozen or so of the other model to the order. The article does seem to conflict with this one from a couple of days ago which states that Australia will only be buying the land version. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12513756%255E31477,00.html
<< Australia seems like a country that should have at least 1-2 aircraft carriers. I hope this idea works out. >>
Australia is so big and its population so relatively small that it is conventionally effectively impossible to defend.
Its defense force, therefore, should comprise every used USN nuclear submarine that becomes available -- leased if that would work for both governments -- nuclear armed -- and the promise to the world that is any of its evil bastards -- the psychopathological Peking predators little-girl-and-boy-slaughtering "pla," for example -- set so much as a foot on an Australian beach?
Phew! up goes Peking!
Shivers! There goes Shanghai!
Hell! Not Hong Kong?
[What bloody Hong Kong?]
Yep, and that used to be Australian strategic doctrine. A bit of brief history, perhaps.
The two carrier policy was introduced in 1947 when it was decided to acquire two Majestic class carriers from the UK.
The first was HMAS Sydney (originally the HMS Terrible) which was accepted for service in 1949. The Sydney/Terrible was basically a World War II carrier designed for use with piston engine aircraft. Obviously by 1949, things were changing, and it was decided that the second carrier - HMAS Melbourne (originally the HMS Majestic) would be modified to more modern needs - angled flight desk, steam powered catapaults, mirror based landing system, etc. Because of this Melbourne wasn't accepted for service until 1955 - in the interim, the Royal Navy lent us the Collossus class carrier, Vengeance.
HMAS Sydney served as a carrier during the Korean War, but really was only barely capable because of its old fashioned design - that is, it served well enough in Korea, but it was already clear that it was at the limits of its capabilities. The Navy tried to get the government to fund modernisation, but that was refused. Once Melbourne became available, Sydney was relegated to a training ship, and then mothballed in 1958. We were now down to one carrier - and even the Melbourne was looking a little small given the aircraft that were being developed. Australia at this time, examined the possibility of buying a larger carrier (possibly a US Essex class), but that didn't come to fruition. In 1959, it was announced that in 1963, when Melbourne was due for a refit, fixed wing aviation would be disbanded in the Royal Australian Navy, as there was no guarantee of government support and funding for new aircraft, or extending the life of existing aircraft. The two carrier policy had gone to a one carrier policy, to a no-carrier policy in less than 15 years.
Fortunately for the RAN, John Gorton became Minister for the Navy at this time, and he actually was willing to fight for what the Navy needed. He managed to find funding to keep the Sea Venoms and Gannets in service.
The RAN again tried to get a new carrier - again, a US Essex class was the main one wanted - but the Defence Minister knocked it back. The key to keeping a carrier force then became the need to find aircraft to replace the Sea Venoms and Gannetts - basically something small. The A-4 Skyhawk fitted the bill.
The Navy had to fight to get the Skyhawk - the RAAF wanted all moneys to be spent on more F-111s, but eventually the government let the Navy buy 10 of them - and the Navy was able to buy another 10, by sacrificing the building of two submarines.
The Skyhawks entered service on Melbourne in 1968.
Meanwhile Sydney had come back into service as a troopship - and served this role throughout the Vietnam War - the Vung Tau Ferry - before being decommissioned at the end of Australian involvement in that war.
I joined the Navy in the mid-1970s, intending to try and make my career in Carrier - or rather Carrier, because we only had one - so what happened from then on, affected me a lot.
Melbourne was getting old - functionally she was a modified and somewhat modernised World War II era carrier. Australia had a conservative government at the time - late 1970s - and they were willing to replace the Melbourne, but wanted to do so as cheaply as was reasonably possible. It was decided that STOVL aircraft (like the Harrier) was the way to go, and they began looking for a replacement carrier and aircraft for it. They looked at a bunch of potential designs and eventually came down to three - but suddenly the Royal Navy informed Australia that it had decided that one of its existing STOVL carriers, the HMS Invincible, was surplus to requirements - and Australia could have it pretty cheap if it wanted it.
On 25th February 1982, Australia announced that it was going to purchase the Invincible and it would join the Australian fleet in 1983 as HMAS Australia.
Unfortunately for us, on 2nd April 1982, Argentina invaded the Falklands.
The war that resulted convinced the Royal Navy it needed to keep Invincible - Australia was offered the HMS Hermes for purchase as an alternative but it didn't fit our needs - and while the Navy reopened consideration of the other options, in February 1983, a Labor government was elected - and the new Defence Minister announced that Melbourne would not be replaced.
Labor held office until the mid 1990s - and did quite a lot of damage to our defence capabilities in that time. We're now rebuilding - but things that would have been relatively cheap if they'd been done slowly, are much more expensive when they have to be done quickly after years of neglect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.