Quote:
Originally Posted by JBG
Watnee, I'd agree with point three were we to keep and upgrade the F-111s. The retirement of the F-111s are the "capability gap" that is "causing us to buy Super Hornets.
Would RAN CVs be seen as agressive in this part of the world? Certainly, but not wanting to harp on, so have the F-111s, amongst other platforms, for some time. ( the F-11s predescesor ( sic ) the Canberra was also the best or only of it's type here in the Pacific ) Every time we buy good stuff the locals complain. But they are not going to make life too unpleasant for us either, it must be said.
Unfortunately, for any number of reasons, our interests require us to be able to project force well beyond our borders.
My personal bias is toward VSTOL and helicopter carriers, much as Watnee was suggesting. Given that we can't afford ( let alone crew ) both CVs and amphibious assault carriers, we can only have the latter. Imagine a "Wasp" class designed today but with a ski ramp. Up to 12 JSFs plus MH-90s and Tigers.
Jonathan
|
Agreed, an Assault ship is the closest we are going to come to an Aircraft Carrier any time soon. I would have liked to see us employ one such vessel as a Helicopter Assault ship and another as a Sea Control Ship, which would possibly have been within our reach, but it's not going to happen now I suspect. Anyway, we need to focus a lot more on our Sealift, Airlift and most importantly our ground combat capability, which is sorely lacking.