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.
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.
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......
Originally posted by xpert11
a flat top would be a good way for Australia to defend South Korea against its nutty neighbour.
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.
Originally posted by longbow
US Marine Corps Wasp class ship would be better.
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?!
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'?
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]
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
.
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.