The HMAS Melbourne (1955-1982)
Posted on 08/28/2007 9:24:37 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Navy hopes fly, but aircraft carrier still off radar
Nicholas Stuart
NOT LONG ago, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson insisted that the old "defence of Australia doctrine" was as dead as the dodo. Soon afterwards, those who had gloated at this statement were suddenly chortling with glee, particularly when they heard which of the two new amphibious ships the navy would be getting. That's because the chosen ship the Spanish design has both a catapult and a ski-jump; and these are both vital requirements if you want to send jet aircraft flying off a ship into the wild blue yonder. By the time the news came in that our pilots were now learning to fly off United States aircraft carriers, some of the armchair admirals were in paroxysms of glee. Finally (they hoped), perhaps finally, Australia would again possess an aircraft carrier.
Of course, no one at Russell Hill thinks the idea of getting a carrier is back in the mix now and the reasons are pretty clear-cut.
Firstly, look closely at what Nelson has said and done. It's one thing to attempt to score points at Labor's expense by attacking the notion of "continental defence" that was comprehensively detailed by Professor Paul Dibb, but a significantly greater commitment is required to match this rhetoric with the amount of money needed to fund larger (and more capable) forces.
Nelson has been assiduously building up all three services, but there are limits even to his generosity. He may share his surname with a famous admiral, but this doesn't mean his commitment to that particular service is emotional, particularly where money is concerned.
In fact, parsimony is the reason we are keeping the ski-jump on the two new amphibious ships. It would cost more to get it removed than it does just to leave the ramp on the plans.
Similar reasoning explains why our pilots will train to fly the jets off aircraft carriers. The new F18s that we've bought (in case there are delays in the Joint Strike Fighter project) are a US Navy variant of the older F18s that Australia's air force operates now. This means that if our pilots are to get any real operational experience on the aircraft before we have them based back in Australia, they're going to have to work with the only other squadrons that are using the aircraft under these conditions. Rather than any underhanded plotting on the navy's part, this explains why our pilots are training on US ships.
That's the official line. But there are those who think and hope that the idea of getting another carrier shouldn't end there. They say that only aircraft can properly defend ships at sea from other aircraft (although advances in missile technology make this an uncertain proposition). The ability to have jets working intimately with the fleet would seem to offer big advantages. After all, our last aircraft carrier, the Melbourne, only weighed about 20,300 tonnes , and the amphibious ships are scheduled to weigh more than 25,000 tonnes.
Compared with a real carrier, like the USS Nimitz-class super-carriers, these ships are still pipsqueaks. The US has nine of those 100,000-tonne behemoths, each capable of carrying 85 aircraft (although they normally only carry 64). That's more than our entire current inventory of F/A18s. They are the largest warships in the world, and they really do carry strategic weight. Even if we did want to fit out our new amphibious ships to fly aircraft, there would be no comparison with a real carrier.
The amphibious ships are also urgently required for their main task, ie and the name probably gives it away to operate as amphibious ships. Their task is to transport troops and tanks for deployment overseas, to operate as a command centre and also to contain a deployable field hospital.
These are the primary tasks of these vessels, and it's easy to envisage the sort of exigencies where these would be required. The sort of tasks that were spelt out along with the original defence of Australia doctrine. In reality, they are just replacements for the capacity that we already have existing in ships such as HMAS Tobruk and the Kanimbla-class ships.
If we wanted to convert one of the two new amphibious ships to carry aircraft, it would mean there'd be a gap in our ability to carry out other tasks. This hole couldn't easily be filled. If we wanted an aircraft carrier, we'd just have to buy a third ship.
However, that wouldn't be the end of the financial commitment. Although our new F/A18s fly off the US carriers (length 317m) that doesn't mean they'd fly off our ships (length 230m). Adding that ability to our forces would mean we'd have to buy the new Short Take-off Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the F35, the F35B.
We are getting up to 100 of these aircraft over the next decade, so adding some of these might seem like a good idea. The Vice-Chief of the Defence Force, Lieutenant-General Ken Gillespie, is responsible for this sort of capability, and he sees both benefits and disadvantages with getting these planes. "Although the appearance of having STOVL aircraft can give tactical advantages, it is necessary to balance that up with the logistic, administrative and other difficulties that would accompany having a small number of jets with this capacity," he says.
Again, it's the cost that's the bugbear. To generate a small STOVL capacity of eight aircraft would need between 12 and 16 aircraft. Even so, a strong argument could still be made that these aircraft would be worthwhile, because of the rugged terrain to our north where Australia's forces may have to operate.
The ability to deploy aircraft well forward could be very advantageous. But then again, there is no reason they'd have to operate off a ship. Jungle clearings may prove just as effective. So don't jump for joy yet, because it looks as if the navy might have to wait a while yet before it gets another aircraft carrier.
Nicholas Stuart is a Canberra writer.
nicstuart@hotmail.com
The HMAS Melbourne (1955-1982)
Does Australia have helicopter carriers? Even though these “pocket” carriers do not have the strike range and capability of a fixed wing carrier, they do provide a versatility for both coastal and force protection type operations.
Australia can always get back into the carrier business with some F-35Bs.
They don’t have any dedicated helicopter carriers now,though they are building 2 Spanish designed ships which will displace about 25K tonnes.These maybe modified to launch the F-35B V/STOL variants.
ping
The Australian amphibious ships will be in service by 2013-14 or so according to current estimates.It doesn’t matter if they get the F-35B an year or 2 later,given that they had only signed up for the Airforce variant.
Correct nomenclature is STOVL.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
This is a medium volume pinglist.
“and they really do carry strategic weight”, Where’s that photo of the Nimitz with the caption underneath “100,000 Tons of Diplomacy”?
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.