It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does the R.A.N need an Aircraft carrier?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Does Australia need a carrier ? there hasnt been one since HMAS Melbourne. A carrier would be Useful because it would mean the land based aircraft could remain in Australia while the carrier went off to the area of operation. An example would be the recent campaign in Iraq.
Just an idea I thought I would throw in the pot.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by John bull 1]




posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Dose Australia need a carrier ? there hasnt been one since HMAS Melbourne. A carrier would be Useful because it would mean the land based aircraft could remain in Australia while the carrier went off to the area of operation. An example would be the recent campaign in Iraq.
Just an idea I thought I would throw in the pot.


- I don't know about 'need' in the strictest sense.

A conventional large fixed wing aircraft carrier to merely act as a 'police base' in a post-war Iraq type situation seems massively OTT to me.

But then again certain US types seem determined to have a war with NK and China and if you want to join in properly......



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by xpert11
Dose Australia need a carrier ? there hasnt been one since HMAS Melbourne. A carrier would be Useful because it would mean the land based aircraft could remain in Australia while the carrier went off to the area of operation. An example would be the recent campaign in Iraq.
Just an idea I thought I would throw in the pot.


- I don't know about 'need' in the strictest sense.

A conventional large fixed wing aircraft carrier to merely act as a 'police base' in a post-war Iraq type situation seems massively OTT to me.

But then again certain US types seem determined to have a war with NK and China and if you want to join in properly......

Sorry my fault I should have said during the Invasion of Iraq yeah a flat top would be a good way for Australia to defend South Korea against its nutty neighbour.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
a flat top would be a good way for Australia to defend South Korea against its nutty neighbour.


- is that "defend" in the sense of launching an unprovoked attack on NK or the more usual definition of 'if NK were ever to actually launch an attack on SK'?



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Funny I was just pondering that question last night. The big question is does Australia need to project force beyond the range of its airforce? Currently it doeas not. Carriers are a huge expense as well.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Of course Australia would have had a carrier, and probably some Sea Harriers as well had it not been for the Falkands War. Invincible had already been renamed HMAS Australia when the Argies forced an abrupt about turn.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Of course Australia would have had a carrier, and probably some Sea Harriers as well had it not been for the Falkands War. Invincible had already been renamed HMAS Australia when the Argies forced an abrupt about turn.


- Well they could put that right if they like.

I believe they might all be up for sale in a year or two, job lot!



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 10:59 AM
link   
you never know, maybe they will. The Sea Harrier is a BVR Interceptor now as well, they wont get another as cheap, especially not a V/STOL one!


Then we could afford 232 Typhoons!



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   
They could get a small one and put the VTOL JSF on it. You wouldn't need a massive carrier this way, and it would provide enough force projection for a country that size.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   
US Marine Corps Wasp class ship would be better. It is able to carry the same number of aircrafts as Invincible but also 1600-1800 Marines so it could be used for assault role also.









posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
US Marine Corps Wasp class ship would be better.


- Naaa, we got 4 invincible class through deck jobs coming up for sale soon, decent Sea Harrier FA2's to go with and all.

Come on Aus, what more could you want?!



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- Naaa, we got 4 invincible class through deck jobs coming up for sale soon, decent Sea Harrier FA2's to go with and all.

Come on Aus, what more could you want?!


I wish we could keep them at least until these ever shrinking new carriers come into service.

Invincible class are small but cool.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   
IMO we definitely don't need an aircraft carrier as they are very expensive to operate and maintain. Also, we should only equip the defence force to do it's job , to defend Australia and not purchase what obviously is weapon that is primarily of an offensive nature (bywhich I mean just turn up off another countries coastline with the US navy and launch strikes from it). We would be better off spending that money on more Abrams and Javelin's IMO.


thanks,
drfunk

[edit on 4-9-2004 by drfunk]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I agree, Australia won't need aircraft carriers since it's mainly an offensive natured weaponary. I think they should focus more on anti-aircraft carrier weaponary instead cause anyone invading Australia would have to use aircraft carriers to get their aircraft in range. Just my 2 cents.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by xpert11
a flat top would be a good way for Australia to defend South Korea against its nutty neighbour.


- is that "defend" in the sense of launching an unprovoked attack on NK or the more usual definition of 'if NK were ever to actually launch an attack on SK'?

For the record I was refering to attack on South korea by the North.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
IMO we definitely don't need an aircraft carrier as they are very expensive to operate and maintain. Also, we should only equip the defence force to do it's job , to defend Australia and not purchase what obviously is weapon that is primarily of an offensive nature (bywhich I mean just turn up off another countries coastline with the US navy and launch strikes from it). We would be better off spending that money on more Abrams and Javelin's IMO.


thanks,
drfunk
I disagree with you here flattops can be used in defence as well as offensive see the battle of midway. In todays unstable world the ablity to show up on some ones doorstep is quite useful.


[edit on 4-9-2004 by drfunk]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
US Marine Corps Wasp class ship would be better. It is able to carry the same number of aircrafts as Invincible but also 1600-1800 Marines so it could be used for assault role also.
Nice one a wasp class carrier could carry the SAS and support troops and the air cover to ensure the misson is a success
.









D

posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
They could get a small one and put the VTOL JSF on it. You wouldn't need a massive carrier this way, and it would provide enough force projection for a country that size.


Yeah I'd go with that idea if Australia ever needed one. Saw some pictures of the British Royal Navy and some of the aircraft carriers are pretty small with a stack of Harriers on them.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 02:57 AM
link   
That was the battle of midway, which became a trap for the japanese navy as they didn't expect US carriers there. Carriers came in good use there so you could project lots of airpower out in the middle of the pacific. Australia IMO doesn't need that.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Yeah a carrier would be nice, but largely irrelevant for the typical role of the R.A.N, border control and assisting in peacekeeping operations in the pacific. Where a carrier really would be too much.

It may have been possible to make use of a Carrier during the invasion of Iraq, but there was no shortage of them in the region. It really would have just been coming along for the ride. Considering the cost/upkeep of a full blown carrier, there are cheaper more flexible options open to the RAN.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join