Naval Air: <b>March 6, 2005</b>

March 6, 2005

Both Japan and Australia are looking to acquire aircraft carriers, preferably smaller ones of the Harrier carrier variety. However, the question has been raised about why neither country is looking at purchasing the older American Forrestal and Kitty Hawk-class carriers that are being retired. These are large (60,000 ton) vessels which, until the 1990s, were the first line of defense for the United States.

These old carriers have some advantages for Australia and Japan: They are more than capable of operating a small force of V/STOL aircraft and helicopters. With refurbishing, they can be available much sooner than a newly built vessel. There is also the fact that the United States can readily provide support (in the form of spare parts) and in the ability to operate (these ships have operated with the U.S. Navy for years, and integrating them into combined operations will be relatively easy).

These carriers are also tough to sink due to their large size. Their power plants are superb, enabling these carriers to hit a top speed of 61 kilometers per hour. They also can operate such aircraft as the F/A-18C/D or F/A-18E/F Hornet, which carry advantages over the various Harrier versions in service.

These ships are more capable than the projects Japan and Australia are pursuing. Japans project is officially a 14,500-ton helicopter destroyer. The official designation is probably a subterfuge. One of the concept designs, though, looks much like a small carrier. Australia is planning to purchase two small amphibious carriers (LHDs), either a version of Frances Mistral-class LPD or a Spanish design from Bazan.

There are problems with using the older American carriers. First, there are the power plants. They are oil-fired boilers. That sort of power plant is hardly used any more, having been phased out in favor of gas turbines or diesel engines. Putting these more modern plants in these old ships would be difficult, if not impossible. The new designs will be able to have more modern power plants, and while they might be slower, it will be easier to maintain them and there will be no need to cannibalize spare parts.

These ships are also old. The youngest of these carriers is the John F. Kennedy, which was commissioned in 1968. The other carriers are over 40 years old, and dont have much life left in them. In their active service, they have been on the front lines often and these ships will need a lot of work to get into shape for another twenty or so years of front-line service.

They are also manpower-intensive. These ships have a crew of 2-3,000 sailors, and that is before one even starts to discuss the personnel for the air wing. This is a huge issue for Japan and Australia, both of which have had problems maintaining a sufficient number of personnel. Their populations are also much smaller than those of the United States, and their defense budgets are also limited.

Then, there is the amount of time these ships are available. At best, they will be available for twenty years. The newer vessels will be able to stick around much longer. This is an important consideration for these two countries, which wont have the funds to buy these ships and then replace them fifteen years down the road. Ships have to last a long time.

Finally, for Japan, aircraft carriers are politically touchy. Past efforts have resulted in controversy, since carriers are used primarily to project power. Acquiring an American carrier, even an old one, would be a huge firestorm politically, especially since American carriers have proven to be offensive weapons as well.

Australia and Japan are looking to return to the business of having carrier forces. Newly designed and built ships will not be anywhere close to the older American carriers in capability, but they will be enough to make the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force and the Royal Australian Navy very potent forces for the next three decades. Harold C. Hutchison (hchutch@ix.netcom.com)