Originally posted by Daedalus3
What's the sentiment of the Australian people? Their votes can shape government policies right? What's the Rudd Govt like?
Re: Carriers. The sentiment of the Australian people is that roughly half of them don't remember a time when Australia had one (let alone 2). So, you
don't miss what you never had. It would require a lot of political and military inertia to convince those people of the need to spend the money a
carrier (or 2) requires. Plus, before the introduction of JSF-35 you would need to rent a sqn of Harriers. Last time we did that was Mirages and while
I was alive I don't *remember* it.
I still believe(call me thick-headed) that Australia should strive for 'strategic independence' from the US that it currently does not have
So do I. But we are defending a continent with a population smaller than Canada's. We could all move to Mumbai and still be able to rent property
I believe a RAAN carrier force make a difference, in a pure military capability sense and a geo-political sense as well.
Of course it would. HMAS Sydney and her Sea Furies deployed to Korea, meaning the RN could relax by one carrier. The problem is that Sydney's sister
ship, HMAS Melbourne, our last carrier, is these days more chiefly remembered for two unfortunate incidents in which the HMAS Voyager and USS Frank
Evans thought standing in a carrier's way was a good idea.
Is it just that the economy cannot support that initiative at this stage? I'm confused
The problem isn't just the economy, it's manning the ships as well. Australia has always had difficulty maintaining recruitment for it's
all-volunteer, professional defence forces. In the last decade this difficulty has grown worse than ever before.
HMAS Melbourne ran 1,300 people (inc air wing), HMAS Adelaide (FFG) needs 150-250, HMAS Hobart (Adelaide's replacement) will (in 5 years or so) need
around 200 or so personnel.
I really do not get this 'protector' concept. What if your protector turns on you? Ok, I doubt protectors turn on their 'protectees' on the
drop of a hat, but hey, what's stopping them from looking the other way, or intentionally delaying assistance etc.?
Well, 1972 is hardly the drop of a hat, but I'd say the Taiwanese would be standing up and chanting "Amen!" to each of your questions. Let's face
it, Taiwan (a democracy) is being told by the US (a democracy) not to hold a referendum on UN application because it might piss off China (a communist
dictatorship). Didn't W just spend the last four years telling us of the virtues democracy would bring to the Middle East?
Originally posted by Harlequin
Well technically the UK doesn`t `need` carrier by teh assestment - they have bomber capabilitiy right up there with the `varks (up there does not
equal to) and more advanced fighters
That's right, technically, but the last time the RAF tried that trick they produced a map which had managed to shift Perth 200nmi west
see, RAF said, hey, with friendly airbases all over the world and the magid of air-to-air refueling, we can provide air cover to the RN anywhere on
the globe. The pollies, proving that any moron can get elected in a democracy, nearly bought the argument, until someone in the RN pointed out how
long it would take a RAF jet to fly across the world to defend the fleet at sea and how much it would cost and how few jets the RAF would have
available to defend the RN in the event of noisy happenings in the Fulda Gap.
and yet teh RN is screaming for the new carriers
Because the RN knew how wrong the RAF was 30+ years ago, but that didn't mean they didn't have to disguise HMS Invincible in the literature by
calling it (and Illustrious and Ark Royal) a "through-deck cruiser". Luckily there was a jet being introduced that was perfect for the
"through-deck cruiser" (or, rather, the Harrier Carrier happened to be perfect for its plane) and in 1982 the RAF proved how much good they would
have been to the fleet when they missed the runway while bombing Stanley Airport. The FAA, on the other hand, had just proved how absolutely
indispensable it was.
Knowing what a disaster Operation Corporate would have been without (and very nearly was with) Hermes, Invincible and their Harriers, the RN wants to
be without carriers (as they very nearly were back then) about as much as they want to see HMS Victory leading them into battle again.
power projection is whats needed - and aa force of pressence.
The Harrier wasn't about power projection, it was about fleet defence. The power was being projected on the ground by the Paras and Bootnecks,
they couldn't have done it without Harrier protecting them on the way there. HMS Conqueror projected power fairly convincingly.
Pig projects power quite handily throughout Indonesia. To quote Jon Stevens "reach out and touch someone".
Originally posted by Daedalus3
2)Can the protectee strengthen this disruptive activity by having a fulltime ally? Sing naval forces can hopefully shift some assets to Oz staging
areas before Spore is overrun.
It's been done before. We could also hopefully get any surviving Fighting Falcons to Tindal.
Can they count on Indian assistance?
Its strategic sub forces and an entire carrier wing can assist the Oz.
3)Can this force stem(even blockade) all chinese seaborne energy supplies?
There is a high likelihood. Given that those energy supplies must pass through, or close to, the Straits of Mallace, the Sunda Strait, the Banka
Strait, the Makassar Strait and, of course, the Singapore Strait. That's a lot of territory giving potential bottle-necks. Any Chines force wishing
to go adventuring further south would definitely have to pass through 2, if not 3, of those narrow waterways. (I can't see the PLA choosing
rationally to fight in Papua New Guinea. Just because we have better malaria medicine than quinine, it wouldn't be any easier than '42.)
4)Can an Oz carrier help in this case?
That depends. Any carrier we can afford is quite limited in the number of aircraft it can embark. If they own Indonesian real estate, there is no
similar limit on how many Shenyangs, Chengdus and F10s the Chinese can park there. The only way to win in such a straight-up numbers game (in my
obviously tactically superior view) is for a combined Aus/Indian CBG that could put large numbers of aircraft in the sky at once. The problem is that
yours are Harriers (and old ones) flying off even older decks. Ours would be the similarly short-legged JSF-35.
In the Falklands the Super Entendards were attacking at the extreme end of their range, the Harriers were defending. In the Indonesian archipeligo a
C'wealth maritime force would be attacking, putting them on short combat leashes, while the defenders (land-based aircraft) would have the advantage
of both range and combat time.