Aircraft carrier in Navy's $4bn wish list

[wessex19]

By Ian McPhedran

March 25, 2008 12:00am

THE Royal Australian Navy has produced a secret $4 billion "wish list" that includes an aircraft carrier, an extra air warfare destroyer and long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles for its submarine fleet.

The RAN wants a third 26,000 tonne amphibious ship equipped with vertical take-off jet fighters, a fourth $2 billion air warfare destroyer and cruise missiles that could strike targets thousands of kilometres away.

The list comes at a time when the RAN can barely find enough sailors to crew its existing fleet.

It also coincides with a Federal Government push to save $1 billion a year in defence costs as well as a government-ordered White Paper which will set the spending priorities for the next two decades.

According to insiders, the Government was unimpressed by the RAN's push for more firepower at a time when the Government is aiming to slash spending.

"The navy is out of control," one defence source said.

It is understood that the wish list was the final straw in the tense relationship between the Government and Chief of Navy Vice-Admiral Russ Shalders - who will be replaced in July by Rear Admiral Russell Crane.

Admiral Shalders last year also pushed hard for an expensive US-designed destroyer, but lost out to the cheaper, Spanish option.

Taxpayers will spend more than $11 billion to provide the RAN with the two 26,000-tonne amphibious ships and three air-warfare destroyers equipped with 48 vertical launch missiles.

The two big ships, known as Landing Helicopter Docks, are designed for amphibious assaults and will be fitted with helicopters and be capable of carrying more than 1000 troops and heavy vehicles such as tanks and trucks.

The RAN wants a third ship to carry vertical take-off fighter jets.

Its last aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, was decommissioned in 1982 before being sold for scrap.

The latest ships are 10m longer and 8m wider than the Melbourne and will be built in Spain and fitted out at the Tenix shipyard in Melbourne. The Spanish navy will carry 30 Harrier jump jets aboard its similar ships.

They will each cost more than $1.7 billion. The fighters would cost about $100 million each. The destroyers will cost about $2 billion each, taking the total cost to more than $4 billion.

Tomahawk cruise missiles cost about $1 million each and can carry a 450kg conventional or 200 kiloton nuclear warhead more than 2500km.

In the past Australia has stayed away from long-range strike missiles for fear of triggering a regional arms race.

The wish list is what the RAN would like to see make up part of the White Paper process which will later this year provide a strategic blueprint for the defence of the nation for the next 20 years.

That process will direct new spending worth more than $50 billion over the next 10 years.

[Wingspar]

I think this request should have been made last year!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

This exlpains the rumour going around that the US offered our government the USS Kittyhawk.

[Going Boeing]

The cost of maintaining and running the Kittyhawk would be staggering - it would swallow a disproportionate amount of the Defence budget.

I always thought that the Navy's Landing Helicopter Docks were a stealth way to get light Aircraft Carriers back into the fleet.

[Buster Hyman]

Oooh...oooh...can we call it the Melbourne again???:}

[Skystar320]

Wasnt it rumoured a couple of years ago the RAN were going to buy England's Invinsible class carriers x 3?

the reason behind not buying them, was something about a hollow hull? [bang a rubber mallet at one end and you could hear it at the other]

HMAS Perth would be great :) quids over Melbourne :)

[roamingwolf]

Only if it has a big thick rubber cover over the bow :oh:

I reckon this might be the navy's way of stopping the new gov from cutting their budget.
attack is the best form of defence sort of thing.look kev we actually need $40 billion more to be able to do our stuff not less.

[roamingwolf]

ahhh...skystar320

The Perth is already taken but if you are going to rename a ship an even better name would be the Sydney in honour of the ship just found.

or if we are thinking of a new name how about HMAS Beersheba or HMAS Gallipoli

[Skystar320]

HMAS Alice Springs?

Isnt Sydney taken aswell?

[Buster Hyman]

HMAS John W. Howard......:E

(That'll get em going......)

[Keg]

ROFLMAO! What a top stirrer! :ok:

[Gnadenburg]

Geez

We just found the HMAS Sydney. A loafing aircraft carrier would be a great big target for the cheap submarines proliferating to our north.

[lowerlobe]

HMAS John W. Howard......

Nice one Buster...But doesn't that mean that we would have to name it's supply ship the HMAS Janette because they went everywhere together....:E

Besides,if we named a ship after Johnny it would have to be called the USS Howard....:E:E:E

Or.....How about the HMAS Latham.....

Nope, that wouldn't work because it would torpedo itself all the time and end up self destructing.

[Buster Hyman]

I know that the HMAS Dr. Bob Brown will be a submarine.....solar powered of course!:rolleyes:

[lowerlobe]

Isnt Sydney taken aswell?

Skystar...I think that's what RW meant when he said "if you are going to rename a ship"..

Because you had mentioned the HMAS Perth which is taken as well as is the Sydney...

The Perth is already taken but if you are going to rename a ship an even better name would be the Sydney in honour of the ship just found.

[lowerlobe]

HMAS Dr. Bob Brown will be a submarine

That doesn't have anything to do with a certain persons inclination does it Buster....

[Buster Hyman]

Why, I have no idea what you mean Lobee.....:confused::confused::confused:

[dsham]

getting back to the original topic..............

why is the Navy even thinking about this madness!!! They have barely enough people to staff the current fleet as it is with each Frigate only requiring 160-200 crew each. Even the smallest carrier would require a min of 1000. Also how many fast jet pilots do we have that are currently deck landing rated!!!

[Blip]

I think if they are that good that they make it through fast jet training and check out on FA-18's, I think they'd pick up carrier landing easily enough.

[Going Boeing]

why is the Navy even thinking about this madness!!!

When you are a Defence Chief under a government intent on slashing the Defence budget, the best way to preserve your current capacity is to put in a ridiculous bid to significantly increase capability and then the government slashes the bid back but leaves the current infrastructure intact - everyone walks away thinking that they have had a win.

[Plazbot]

I am not defence expert but seeing our remoteness from the rest of our neighbours, would it not make sense to have a naval capability to deliver aircraft? Throw in some long range stuff like the missiles suggested as well from sub platforms. Really, it makes sense to me as an observer. I am guessing the RAAF would not be happy if being the AIRforce, they were turned into something like the kiwi airfarce.

[yowie]

Well I guess its not a secret anymore then!:D

[lowerlobe]

I reckon this might be the navy's way of stopping the new gov from cutting their budget.
attack is the best form of defence sort of thing.look kev we actually need $40 billion more to be able to do our stuff not less.

Going Boeing.....I think that's basically what RW said.....

Buster....I didn't think so....

I meant of course that as a greeny his inclination would be to want a solar powered sub.....that is opposed to a coal powered sub:E

[lowerlobe]

PAF....

I guess then that you are saying that Navy chief Vice Admiral Russ Shalders is independent & impartial and able to objectively advise the Government.

[OhSpareMe]

During my stint with the 'Gray Funnel Line' (immediately post HMAS Melbourne and Invincible) the 'rumour' going around was that the USN was about to offer us (the RAN) the USS Oriskany or something similiar.

Now I see the rumour is for the K'Hawk.

Gotta love those buzzes.

We need an aircraft carrier about as much as we need 100 x JSF's! I truly hope we don't buy either. I can barely stomach the backflip on the Super Hornet.

[numbskull]

The Navy couldn't organise a chook raffle. They can barely crew or maintain half their fleet now. Refits are continually way overschedule and over budget. They cannot retain the few well trained people that they do have and all they are left with is the dead wood.

So what do they want to do? Buy even more complex and large platforms that they will be unable to crew and maintain to any decent standard.

They'd be better off filling up a couple of hercs with $100 notes and dropping them all over South East Asia to keep the neighbours onside!!

If the Navy were an airline they'd be grounded. To be fair though, They probably work OK when their being shot at!!

[dsham]

after having recently spent 9 years with the navy what is being said on this forum is basically the truth. The navy can spend as much as it wants on new platforms, but unless they consider real retention alternatives there is going to be no-one to crew them.

[havick]

they already have subs tied up alongside at Stirling due to lack of crew.

[teresa green]

If they buy a aircraft carrier, its the last time my boat is going to Sydney Harbour:sad::sad:!

[Whiskey Oscar Golf]

I am by no means a defence expert so can someone answer my question. If I have in flight refuelling, a long range type and long range standoff weapons. What does an aircraft carrier give me in a regional conflict that these things don't? What is the tactical advantage of something that I'll have to use a heap of resources to protect that can be achieved by using other means? Or can it?. Again if the answer is an easy one please let me know. I'm not up to speed with the tactical thinking in this regard.

[jethrolx]

For an Island nation I have always wondered why we didnt have an aircraft carrier.... with the exception of RAAF base Tidnal all our air capability seems a long way from our potential threats. Landing a Hornet on a carrier, sounds like fun to me :ok:

[G-ZUZZ]

There are skeleton bases all around the Top End.

Maybe you all missed the bit about the V/STOL aspect. Won't be any hornets landing on these boats.

The journo can't add up his billions, neither.

[Buster Hyman]

W.O.G. - I guess all I can come up with is that whilst you have the refuelling etc, it's still a long way there & a long way back...not a lot of missions can be run if they have to travel so far. The carrier affords frequency of missions at the very least, although I do understand your valid point.

A bit like sending "gunboat up river" perhaps....


Anyways....I don't care much for the song, but these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J05XhJ-N_U&feature=related) look nice!

[ApocalypseThen]

Surely any vessel named HMAS Dr.Bob Brown would suffer from excessive
leaking due to friction of the shaft on the stern gland and stuffing box?

[Buster Hyman]

Would that inhibit its ability to go down, below?:confused:

[ApocalypseThen]

The seamen would have to escape somehow .

[Going Boeing]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-x-pics.htm