Wif challenge- design a " simple" Aircraft carrier circa 1980s for RAN

[rickshaw]

The RAN is designed to primarily defend Australia in the "sea-air gap" (the area of ocean surrounding the continent).  Secondarily it is designed to project Australia political power into the surround region.  So, in other words its primary AO is the Indian, Southern, SW Pacific and Southern Pacific Oceans.  In that region it would face as its most advanced threats the PRC, followed by India. In addition there are the other navies of the region.  Most of these are allied to us either directly or indirectly through one alliance or another.   Only the PRC, Vietnam and DPRK are not.   While the threat environment could be considered a great less threatening than the RN has had to face and continues to face, the growing naval and air power of the PRC is a concern.   India's growing political and economic power is also a concern but a lower one.

We could become involved in any number of potential regional conflicts from Korea to Taiwan, to a renewed Sino-Indian conflict.  On top of which we have numerous peace-keeping commitments and potential minor conflicts in the Islands to our North and North-East, as East Timor and the Solomans have proved.

A potential MELBOURNE successor would require to be able to defend itself from anything ranging from sophisticated anti-shipping missiles, submarines through to being asked to project airpower ashore in support of peace-keeping operations to disaster relief and so on.

[Weaver]

Are we considering this carrier in a current context or an early 1980s one (i.e. as an alternative to the abortive Invincible deal)? In the early 1980s, the PRC was much less of a threat, I presume.

What level of airpower do you want to project abroad? Air cover plus limited CAS for a peacekeeping mission or a full-blown war? For how long? (Small carriers are much less attrition-resistant than large ones).

If you're considering going up against the future Indian or PRC carriers, then you're going to be looking at MiG-29/Su-27 level aircraft, and that pretty much rules out Harriers: any air group less than a decent number of F-18/Rafales is going to get slaughtered. Effectively, the opposition are designing your carrier for you.

Another thing is that both the PRC and India have supersonic AShMs (SSN-22 Sunburn and Bhramos), which might make it worth re-considering a CIWS-only defence. There's a theory that if you destroy such a missile at typical Phalanx ranges, the sheer momentum of the damned thing will mean that most of the bits hit you anyway, doing almost as much damage as if it was in one piece. You really need something along the lines of Seawolf/ESSM/Aster to take these things out at a safe distance.

[rickshaw]

Are we considering this carrier in a current context or an early 1980s one (i.e. as an alternative to the abortive Invincible deal)? In the early 1980s, the PRC was much less of a threat, I presume.

In the 1980s?  A more distant and less capable one, definitely.  In the 1980s, Indonesia was seen (rather mistakenly IMHO) as "THE threat".  However, at the same time, the PRC was being much more aggressive in the South China Sea.  Concerns were raised about that, and as Oz was allied either directly or indirectly with most of the other nations surrounding the South China Sea, it was feared that we might get dragged into any potential conflict which might have broken out.  Another fear was a renewed Sino-Indian conflict.  This was always a personal favourite of mine because of the potential that because you have a land stalemate, the Indian and Chinese navies both attempt to force a decision by outflanking the land front, they could meet in/round/over the Isthmus of Kra (Malayan peninsular for the geographically challenged).  As we are directly allied to Malaysia through the Five Power Agreement, we would then be forced to move to help protect Malaysia and hence become involved in a three-way naval war.

What level of airpower do you want to project abroad? Air cover plus limited CAS for a peacekeeping mission or a full-blown war? For how long? (Small carriers are much less attrition-resistant than large ones).

It would have been hoped to be either for short, sharp, full-blown wars or for extended, longer-term peacekeeping operations.  As a consequence, the mix of the airwing would have had to have changed, from primarily CAP to primarily CAS to suit the mission.

If you're considering going up against the future Indian or PRC carriers, then you're going to be looking at MiG-29/Su-27 level aircraft, and that pretty much rules out Harriers: any air group less than a decent number of F-18/Rafales is going to get slaughtered. Effectively, the opposition are designing your carrier for you.

Don't they always?  One of the major problems the ADF has always faced is the lack of an immediate threat.  To the point that it created a mythical nation called "Musoria" and wrote entire military training manuals on them and their equipment which was invariably a mix of Soviet and Western stuff.   I have a collection of the training Pams up to the late 1980s.  Makes interesting reading as domestic politics changed and realism crept into military thinking over time from the 1960s when they started writing them.  This lack of a real, immediate threat has made it difficult for the ADF to plan contingencies and equipment purchases.

Another thing is that both the PRC and India have supersonic AShMs (SSN-22 Sunburn and Bhramos), which might make it worth re-considering a CIWS-only defence. There's a theory that if you destroy such a missile at typical Phalanx ranges, the sheer momentum of the damned thing will mean that most of the bits hit you anyway, doing almost as much damage as if it was in one piece. You really need something along the lines of Seawolf/ESSM/Aster to take these things out at a safe distance.

They do now.  They didn't then.   As I thought we were talking about the 1980s, I didn't include a higher level defence capability.  Obviously, as the threat changes, so must the defensive armaments with the need to defeat the threat further away.

[Joe C-P]

An Iwo Jima LPH would have made a useful V/STOL sea control ship. That would depend on the condition of the vessels available.

What about one of the leftover USN Essexes? Reagan's government seriously considered returning one to service, and the RAN wouldn't have needed (or wanted) all the bells and whistles the USN would have insisted on.

[GTX]

What about one of the leftover USN Essexes? Reagan's government seriously considered returning one to service, and the RAN wouldn't have needed (or wanted) all the bells and whistles the USN would have insisted on.

Biggest issue I see is crewing - an Essex around that time would have had a crew of around 2300 whereas the Melbourne being replaced required around 1350.  Now even allowing for some reduced manning (through various techniques) and possibly increased recruitment (possible, though questionable), it would have been impossible for the RAN to introduce am Essex without cutbacks in other areas.  Same problem faced the RAN when the Kidd class were offered in the '90s.

Regards,

Greg