gf0012-aust

Wasp was regarded as unsuitable for a number of reasons. hence the push towards the french and spanish solutions.

-{SpoonmaN}-

I think the idea is to plan for a more serious scenario, like one where we might not have friendly CVNs covering our transports, and one where land based RAAF assets are too far away for immediate response. It's not going to happen though, the RAN has been allocated everything it's getting barring some major crisis popping up on the horizon, in which case EVERYONE needs a lot more gear, and a lot sooner than we're getting it too.
Kinda like buying tanks, which we should be doing more of, not less. I have harped on about that one enough though.

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

Stan

we are finnished with Invincible if you fancy her. Bit late i know but im sure you Aussies can get her running nice with some JFS and some choppers

gunnut

A proper carrier with catapults and at least 60,000t is probably out of the question.

A sea control ship in the 20,000t to 30,000t range should be doable.

But the problem is the escorts. You need escorts for a major vessel like that. Those don't run cheap.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

RadioM

Oceania is not tank country, look back in 10 years time and see how little use they will have been. We need speed more than anything. For intimidation we'd be better off with apache's. Jump on it, jump on it.

Escort wise we do have some subs, I'm sure they are looking for something to do.

gf0012-aust

Its not going to happen.

1. we have crewing level problems as it is
2. we are not resourced for maintaining split fleets based on an ESG in addition to existing fleet structure
3. pulling existing assets to act as ESG cohorts would imbalance the fleet (ie. we would then have to buy extra assets to counterbalance the leak from fleets east and fleets west
4. running costs for ESG's are not trivial. quite a few countries have suddenly realised that fact. pulling running costs to run 2 x ESG's (and nominally a 3rd as a spare so as to provide 66% availability) would mess up the rest of the ADF budgets

neilmpenny

A carrier force is primarily an offensive force I think. What are our major threats now and in 25 years? A full blown carrier is not an option. Too many personnel to run it let alone the training. I was on the Melbourne and that sucked up a lot of resource.
Maybe a model based upon an LPH using VTOL joint strike force Jet?
I used to correspond with an old salt who swore that you needed a flat top on the East and West coast.

__________________
No sea too rough, no muf* too tough.

TopHatter

There's an idea. Not necessarily a full-blown carrier, nor a full-blown offensive force, but at the same time affordable to build and man.

-{SpoonmaN}-

The problem is not solely an issue of the terrain, there was an option for Leos to go to Timor, but the CO of 1 Amd., in his wisdom, decided that the mission was not suited for them. Apparently they only fight "real" wars you see.
I would have thought any experience is better than NONE AT ALL, but that's just me.

Besides, while the primary goal of the ADF should be in regional stability and intervention mission, most likely not above a mid-intensity civil war (although the southern Philippines are an option for higher intensity conflict), we have to plan for the event that we are required to play a real role in a larger conflict outside of our region.
Which requires tanks and attack helos, and more than 59 and 22 of them respectively. I suspect we may get them down the track anyway so it shouldn't be too much of a hassle. Basically, the Army needs to come first now, because even if the RAAF 'only' get Super Hornets, then we'll still have by far the largest, best trained and best equipped AF in the region, as can be said for the RAN hands down. This cannot be said for the Army, other than training.

JBG

"Which requires tanks and attack helos, and more than 59 and 22 of them respectively."

I couldn't agree more, A sort of back of the envelope calculation led me to think 120 M1s and about 48 Tigers was "appropriate" for our needs.

I would want Tigers to be regularly deployed on all sort of vessels and all over the place where the ADF operates.

With regard to tanks I am reminded of the debates in Canada about tanks and how useful they have now proved to be in Afganistan.

Jonathan

Wraith601

The Leopard is better suited for peacekeeping/mid-intensity ops like Afghanistan. The Abrams is better suited for conventional warfare, plus i'm not sure Australia has the logistics or the numbers to effectively use it in manuevar warfare without MAJOR US/UK support.

__________________
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
-Sir Arthur Wellesley