Aircraft carrier in Navy's $4bn wish list
 

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.

I think this request should have been made last year!

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

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.

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

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 :)

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.

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

HMAS Alice Springs?

Isnt Sydney taken aswell?

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

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

ROFLMAO! What a top stirrer! :ok:

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.

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.

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

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...

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

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

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!!!

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.

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.