JBG

Should Australia, god knows we are spending big on defence anyway, get back into the CV business?

I would be interested in the views of the members of the forum.

Jonathan

SnowLeopard

The CV business? Or the tin can opening business?
(sorry, couldn't resist)
---------------------------------------------------
("It's depressing that the words "secret agent" have become synonymous with "sex maniac.""--Sir James Bond, (wtte), "Casino Royale")

Dreadnought

Can the Austrailian Navy handle a CV and everything else that goes along with it? That is how large is their Navy?

If they can good for them. Nothing like having another friendly CV force out there.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

gunnut

You don't spend nearly enough to support a navy with a carrier.

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

TopHatter

Define "carrier" here.

After all, countries such as Spain and Italy has STOVL carriers that have great potential, equipped with F-35's for example.

Even as Harrier carriers, they are able to put fairly sustainable airpower into an area lacking conventional air bases. (I don't count a dirt strip as an air base, logistically speaking)

watnee

If the R.A.N was to get a carrier it would probably be a SVTOL. If memory serves me correctly we were considering buying HMS ARK ROYAL off the brits but with the falklands conflict the brits decided against parting with her.

jeffpayne56

Close the RAN had actually paid £200 million for Hms Invincible, but it was paid back after the Falklands war, I think perhaps the RAN should invest in a carrier of some sort, as the defence spending for that region is lacking
cheers
Jeff
p.s the Royal navy has a dozen or so ships lying around including Invincible

__________________
Can the last person to leave the UK please turn out the lights
cheers Jeff

JBG

We operated a carrier from the end of WW2 to the end of the Vietnam War. Only one carrier at a a time but we have operated fixed wing carriers.

We had signed up for a British "through deck cruiser" but the Falklands War convinved the RN that they should keep the carrier in question ( HMS Invinvible? ). In this context I must admit that whilst I was aware of the proposal to buy a carrier, I have not been able to find out what we would put on it. Anyone know of practical alternatives to the Harrier at this junction?



Although some might quibble with certain aspects of the RAN's equipment purchases recently ( anyone want a super SeaSprite that doesn't work? ) the trend has been to spend what it takes to get quality platforms etc available. The Adelaide ( Oliver Hazzard Perry ) class frigates are getting VLS ESSM, the last of the ANZAC frigates has been delivered, we're almost at the point of selecting for production three AW/AEGIS destroyers and two amphibs and a new class of armed patrol vessels is coming into service. Australian defence spending is on a robust trend that the opposition, should they gain government in the upcoming elections, is unlikely to alter. Heck, we just agreed to A$6 billiion for some Super Hornets that we shouldn't need!!

So the real issue with the RAN having a CV/CVs, and by that I am stressing "fixed wing aviation", is the political will and commitment, not finance or need.

On the other hand, there are a LOT of other things that the ADF also needs!!

Just some thoughts.

Jonathan

watnee

The R.A.N. would be unlikely to purchase a CV for a couple of reasons.1,The cost of both the vessel and a new fleet air-arm (both fixed and rotary wing) would be hard to justify. 2,Politically (regional/domestic) it would be a sensitive issue. 3, the JINDALEE over the horizon radar coupled with the AEGIS destroyers fulfill the need for early warning.

jeffpayne56

The deal was also to include some Sea Harriers frs1's and I know that some training had taken place in the flight simulator (harrier) at RNAS Yeolviton (sea harrier base) with members from the RAAF, so puting 2+2 together sounds like the harriers were going to be flown by the RAAF on the the former Invincible which I believe was going to be called HMAS Sydney.
take care
Jeff

Dreadnought

Harrier carriers

You will have to forgive me TH those two words together make me laugh.

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

-{SpoonmaN}-

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.

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

Wraith601

I think some LHDs are the way to go (three preferably). That gives you the ability to operate ASW/attack helos (navalised Tigers anyone?), F-35Bs (simplified logistics with the F-35A purchase), and amphibous landing capability. Plus i'm sure the US would let Australia have some LCUs and AAVs for dirt cheap.

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

RadioM

With what the ADF has been doing in the region recently a helicopter carrier (is there a term I should know for this?) would be a useful move.
Good for small deployments to poxy Sth Pacific nations, handy for Philipines anti-terrorism and fantastic for disaster/aid work.
While we are at it, we should also get some of the Incat trasport ships.
Better that than wasting more money on tanks.

Don't see the point of a carrier for fixed wings, anywhere that we would deploy aircraft too would be too far away. Easier to just fly the planes over and buy everything else we need on-site.