A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[Abraham Gubler]

Apples and oranges. If the naval ships weren't in the middle of a sea without nearby land air bases there would not have been a need for a CAP there... Obviously the air threat there 40 years ago involved the Soviets...

I know of no location close to Australia in the South Pacific that has the same geographic and air threat disadvantages as the far North Atlantic 40 years ago....

Surely you aren't advocating the need for Australian aircraft carriers over a far North Atlantic scenario....

Ahh there is no air threat in the South Pacific. However South East Asia is a little bit different. Also the nearby presence of land does not automatically imply the nearby presence of an accessible air base. Further the land based CAP example in the referred to RN exercise simply provides a benchmark for reasonable analysis. If the distance from land based air to the fleet is half that then you can appropriately adjust the effort required for a CAP. It still isn’t pretty.

No amount of argument can overcome the simple issues of physics associated in land and fleet based air for naval operations. Until we start building fighters with 12 hour loiter capability on internal fuel there will be significant advantages from fleet based air. Of course there is a significant cost load associated. While not everyone can meet this base cost – and some are slipping from it (ie RN) – anyone who can: does.

 

[Sea Toby]

Ahh there is no air threat in the South Pacific. However South East Asia is a little bit different. Also the nearby presence of land does not automatically imply the nearby presence of an accessible air base. Further the land based CAP example in the referred to RN exercise simply provides a benchmark for reasonable analysis. If the distance from land based air to the fleet is half that then you can appropriately adjust the effort required for a CAP. It still isn’t pretty.

No amount of argument can overcome the simple issues of physics associated in land and fleet based air for naval operations. Until we start building fighters with 12 hour loiter capability on internal fuel there will be significant advantages from fleet based air. Of course there is a significant cost load associated. While not everyone can meet this base cost – and some are slipping from it (ie RN) – anyone who can: does.

Does any Aussie think Australia would wage war, much less an amphibious landing, anywhere in SE Asia without SE Asia or other allies? Four to six F-35Bs won't be enough to protect the LHD with a CAP against any of their air force fighter squadrons, much less provide much CAS to the troops ashore...

Surely not until after the RAAF and other allied air forces win air superiority with land based fighters... Frankly, I doubt whether an Aussie LHD will attempt any landing of troops without air superiority being won first...

 

[JoeMcFriday]

Ahh there is no air threat in the South Pacific. However South East Asia is a little bit different. Also the nearby presence of land does not automatically imply the nearby presence of an accessible air base. Further the land based CAP example in the referred to RN exercise simply provides a benchmark for reasonable analysis. If the distance from land based air to the fleet is half that then you can appropriately adjust the effort required for a CAP. It still isn’t pretty.

No amount of argument can overcome the simple issues of physics associated in land and fleet based air for naval operations. Until we start building fighters with 12 hour loiter capability on internal fuel there will be significant advantages from fleet based air. Of course there is a significant cost load associated. While not everyone can meet this base cost – and some are slipping from it (ie RN) – anyone who can: does.

Beat me to it AG, LOL

While I was trying to find a reference to our CON's words on the value of fleet air, you posted.

I'll paraphrase him, I hope accurately.

"When is fleet cover air important?, as soon as your out of range of equivalent land based air cover".
That distance comes up very very quickly!

There surely can be no case against the value of air cover, so as you clearly state, it's the cost factor and further is a nation able and prepared to bear that cost?.

I'll be more crude and say is it value for money? Depends how much said nation's politicians value the "protected" assets both human and material.

It's easy enough to simulate fleet air support, fire up an old copy of "Harpoon", edit all units, esp. tankers and fighters, to known, modern parameters, create a CAP refueling scenario and watch the results.

How can anyone who does this simple thing reasonably state that land cover will do fine?.

How can anyone guarantee the availability, suitability or condition of any foreign airfield/facilities at any future time?

How can anyone guarantee an "Allies" ability to co-operate fully at any given time?

How can anyone guarantee the availability of tankers and land based fighters?

There have been many arguments posited about "need", such as "I perceive no threat that requires us to have a carrier". I say that if we are to limit troop transportation [LHDs] to only operate within a few miles of our coast, that may be right.

We are getting capable troop transportation, we will be forming expeditionary forces, presumably for more than show. They will be protected by skimmers but they will all be better off by adding constant, organic air protection to that mix.

I'm not suggesting a USN CBG model, just better balanced layers of offensive and defensive capabilities for our Navy and Army deployments without relying on anyone else.

I've said before, if we had a real [QE class] carrier, it could pay for itself the first time it's presence prevented a situation from going hot and requiring the Army to deploy.

Government, not Navy, has the purse... so back to Abe:-
"While not everyone can meet this base cost – and some are slipping from it (ie RN) – anyone who can: does"

Right on the money, Abe.

Cheers,
Mac

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Sea route to SE Asia can in theory be maintained by land air cover from 3 Australian bases + 1 foreign (Darwin, Broome (Curtin), Christmas Is) and presumably Singapore/Malaysia could cover the rest.

Legend: 1000 km combat radius circles (540 nm).

Probably will run out of air cover only in a Persian gulf blockade, Taiwan scenario or a pacific war scenario. In all cases, less likely to happen.

 

[rip]

In contested airspace is their still the need to visually identify the aircraft to prevent a blue on blue, or does the IFF transponder come to the fore, can the intercepting aircraft interrogate the unidentified aircraft or only AWACS or ground based radar?

There is a great deal of technology that has reduced the number of Blue on Blue incidents, at least under classic scenarios but here is the problems that we face in low intensity conflicts in the real world, thou not so much in high intensity ones.

When there are other people in theater than just the good guys and the bad guys, like neutrals, clueless civilians, representatives of international organizations flying around inspecting things, self-promoting peace groups trying to act as human shields, provocateurs of all kinds that are hoping to create incidents, some of which even want to become political martyrs for their cause. Most of this wonderful technology we have will not be enough.

Think about the next big headline about shouting down an unarmed civilian aircraft, perhaps filled with brain-dead do-gooders and its possible consequences. What will the politicians demand as the rules of engagement? This puts the poor guy in the cockpit in the situation where has to get in close to see visually if it’s a Wolf or a Lamb. If you get that close you better have a gun.

There was a well-publicized case many years ago where the US air force shot down the wrong helicopter then they still had a Northern no fly zone in Iraq and they were under AWACS control at the time. The pilots were court marshaled and even thou they were found not guilty of criminal negligence their careers were over.

 

[SASWanabe]

ok, i have been thinking about something Volkodav said in the RN thread.

if we did manage to buy QE how would we escort her? potential of upgrading a couple ANZAC II to Hobart standard? maybe keep the Armidales and Minehunters in sevice a bit longer and then upspec their replacement to light frigate sized vessels (Formidables/uparmed Holland Class) .

would any of that be possible or am i just dreaming again?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

ok, i have been thinking about something Volkodav said in the RN thread.

if we did manage to buy QE how would we escort her? potential of upgrading a couple ANZAC II to Hobart standard? maybe keep the Armidales and Minehunters in sevice a bit longer and then upspec their replacement to light frigate sized vessels (Formidables/uparmed Holland Class) .

would any of that be possible or am i just dreaming again?

The escorts are allready in place: the current fleet of destroyers and frigates. An AWD and 2-3 Anzacs would be sufficent to escort a carrier in all but highest threat levels. Rather than sail around being a pretty poor strike group by themselves (1 AWD, 2-3 Anzacs) the addition of a carrier would transform the fleet's combat power.

 

[gf0012-aust]

a pretty poor strike group by themselves (1 AWD, 2-3 Anzacs)

the current SAG model is 1 + 2. so it would be interesting to see a carrier changing that capability..

it certainly no longer stays as a SAG

 

[t68]

Apples and oranges. If the naval ships weren't in the middle of a sea without nearby land air bases there would not have been a need for a CAP there... Obviously the air threat there 40 years ago involved the Soviets...

I know of no location close to Australia in the South Pacific that has the same geographic and air threat disadvantages as the far North Atlantic 40 years ago....

Surely you aren't advocating the need for Australian aircraft carriers over a far North Atlantic scenario....

Well unfortunately the RAN is not confined from operating in the Pacific and Indian Ocean with RAAF air coverage from the mainland; we do have the token force in the Middle East with Operation Slipper. We also handed over RAAF Butterworth back to the Malaysians back in June 1988. But we do have a small number of aircraft (AP-3 Orion of No.92 Wing, No-324 CSS, Army Rifle Company Butterworth) still operating in the area operating under the FPDA.This is a possibility Malaysia could refuse permission for staging of combat aircraft from the base due to sensitivities of whatever the problems that might arise, it’s not unheard of the one’s own allies will not support your task force or make thing difficult when it compromises their own needs.

With a combat capability increase for the RAN with AWD, future frigate upgrade, 12 submarine’s and the LHD will not only be confined deploying around Australian waters and could quite possibly find themselves outside of RAAF coverage. With increased capability and assets Australia could contribute more to a coalition event in the future under an overall command of the UN or coalition control or as seen by ET being the lead nation, but having a larger formation with our own organic carrier capability we can keep it under Australian control of our own assets, whats to say that other countries cannot contribute to a task force with an Australian carrier as its core capability. As you would be aware that when HMAS Melbourne (R21) was in service, quite often she had escorts provide by the USN as well as combining to form a task force with other aircraft carriers of the USN.

As for where the carrier could operate, I am in no way advocating operating a carrier anywhere only where Ausgov deems that she may be required, is that in the Pacific Ocean or the far North Atlantic to the Middle East that’s for the Ausgov to decide.

 

[Kirkzzy]

If another East Timor happens and this time it is out of our current aircraft range and we may need air superiority I think a carrier would be necessary. The problem is... the availability issues of just having only one carrier.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If another East Timor happens and this time it is out of our current aircraft range and we may need air superiority I think a carrier would be necessary. The problem is... the availability issues of just having only one carrier.

No, you don't need a carrier

The fatships eventually will have the Tigers certified and there is no reason at all why they can't do CAS in support of ground (special) forces seizing infrastructure before the principle force arrives.

If fixed wing air was a threat then that would be dealt with before major land forces are committed.

you decapitate and delaminate your enemys principle capabilities before you commit regular forces.

thats why you have black and tans (no, not the drink!)

 

[Aussie Digger]

If another East Timor happens and this time it is out of our current aircraft range and we may need air superiority I think a carrier would be necessary. The problem is... the availability issues of just having only one carrier.

So we are going to go on a UN approved peace keeping mission, where we are the lead nation and where the nation at trouble has invited us in, but for some reason we are going to come up against such a formidable defence capability that we will need carrier based air power to ensure our ability to restore peace and civilian governance?

And the US will not be present to provide one of her 11 aircraft carriers to assist?

Pardon me, but I find any such scenario just a tad far-fetched...

It's as bad as the Navy League and their suggestion of a requirement to have 4-6 JSF's on board our LHD's in case we need to evict an enemy from Christmas Island some day...

 

[Kirkzzy]

So we are going to go on a UN approved peace keeping mission, where we are the lead nation and where the nation at trouble has invited us in, but for some reason we are going to come up against such a formidable defence capability that we will need carrier based air power to ensure our ability to restore peace and civilian governance?

And the US will not be present to provide one of her 11 aircraft carriers to assist?

Pardon me, but I find any such scenario just a tad far-fetched...

It's as bad as the Navy League and their suggestion of a requirement to have 4-6 JSF's on board our LHD's in case we need to evict an enemy from Christmas Island some day...

I was referring to a hostile country that could be neighbouring this particular country. As I hear it things at the time were pretty twitchy with Indonesia. Although our current plan is to be self sufficient, and what better way to be self sufficient than to have an A/C? A flagship that Australia can look to. More of a show of force so that it prevents conflicts in the area it patrols.

 

[Volkodav]

I can’t help but notice that the arguments against an aircraft carrier are similar to those that were voiced against replacing the Leopard MBTs in the 90's when we realised that they were out of date and the devastating effectiveness of modern MBTs had so recently been demonstrated during Desert Storm.

We can’t afford it and even if we could our money would be better spent in other areas.
The required logistics are too expensive.
The supporting equipment and structures are the real cost (and unaffordable)
It will unbalance our force structure.
It will damage relations with other countries in the region.
It will start a regional arms race.
It will be a target and as such will be destroyed before we can make effective use of it.
We don't need it because our allies have it already and will cover for us (we hope)
We have done just fine with out having / deploying the capability for XX years.
It is past its use by date and has been superseded by XX which conveniently is much cheaper and not actually available yet so you can’t prove us wrong.
It is single use and therefore poor value for money.

As I see it the structure of the RAN is not that different than it was when we were in the carrier business, except we now have two replenisnment ships and, once the APAR ANZACs are in service, a greater number of capable escorts.

A carrier would be an addition to our capabilities not a burden on them. A flexible force multiplier that will dramatically increase the overall capability of the ADF and at the times it is unavailable the ADF will be no weaker than it would be if it didn't have a carrier at all. Infact if the carrier would most likely be used as our initial response and its place in theatre would be taken by land based and alliance assets once the necessary agreements and infrastructure had been sorted.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I was referring to a hostile country that could be neighbouring this particular country. As I hear it things at the time were pretty twitchy with Indonesia. Although our current plan is to be self sufficient, and what better way to be self sufficient than to have an A/C? A flagship that Australia can look to. More of a show of force so that it prevents conflicts in the area it patrols.

Indonesia our land based fighters can strike, from Australia. As we could PNG, New Zealand and Timor which are the 4 Countries closest to Australia, if we needed to.

So which Country neighbours us yet is so far away that our land based fighters are short of range AND we are likely to conduct military operations against them?

What of the deployment of RAAF fighters? Could we not deploy our land based fighters within our region? RAAF Butterworth seems a likely deployment option, I believe RAAF has some experience of running fighter operations from there... Singapore or Thailand would be quite happy to have us along too in a time of some regional emergency I imagine, so where exactly would we be fighting if we can't use our own bases or those of our allies and against WHOM?

Those bases might be denied to us. Sure no problems, but who then would we be fighting if Singapore, Thailand or Malaysia will not let us use their bases, breaching their Five Power Defence Agreements in the process mind you and at such an extended range as to be beyond our land based fighters?

As to the carrier itself, I have no argument towards the capability as an addition to ADF capability, but I think we have far more pressing needs than a carrier. Just for the Navy (and maritime warfare matters) we need a new submarine fleet. We need a new maritime patrol aircraft fleet. We need new air warfare destroyers, new frigates, a decent replacement for our patrol craft, mine hunters, hydrographic vessels and landing craft. We urgently need new amphibious ships and we need a new generation of weapons, sensors, training, communications and support systems for all of this to turn it from basic platforms into an actual capability.

Which of these could be sacrificed to fund a carrier and yet not effect Navy's overall balanced force structure? I'd suggest not one of them.

So we turn to the rest of ADF. Maybe Army doesn't really need a new ground based air defence system? Maybe Army should be content with only being able to deploy 2 Chinooks for up to 8 months at a time to support a land force, yet leave assets within Australia for training and contingency purposes? Maybe Army should soldier on for another 20 years with it's fleet of already 40 year old APC's and 15 years old ASLAV's? Maybe Army's reserve Cavalry and Light Horse units can make do in unarmoured land rovers? Maybe Army's reserve infantry battalions don't need a vehicle of ANY kind, nor do our reserve artillery batteries, need an artillery piece of any kind?

Maybe our reserve units, don't need secure, software driven radios, but police in Australia do. Our existing un-secure, un-encrypted, limited bandwidth non data capable manpack radios that are hand me downs from regular units should be good enough for a modern conflict shouldn't they?

Perhaps RAAF should be content with 60 odd combat coded fighters, 5 air refuellers and 6 AEW&C aircraft to defend a Country with a coastline of 20,000k's... It's 14 Hercules aircraft and 8 planned replacement MPA's should be enough too, shouldn't they? Maybe RAAF really can do without an anti-radiation missile system? Maybe our utility helicopters don't need electronic warfare self protection capabilities, nor the ability to deploy to hot and high environments, I mean look how useful our Blackhawks have been in the last 2 major conflicts we have fought in! Our Blackhawks are "so" capable that they can't be deployed to Afghanistan meaning our troops have no dedicated aero-medical evacuation capability, other than the generic ISAF capability, whcih of course is prioritised. Maybe things should stay that way n future? We should deploy our troops overseas, but not give them their own, proper force protection capabilities?

We can't rely on allies for a carrier, but relying on them for our own troop transport is showing the world how "self reliant" we really are...

Can no-one else see any capability gaps in ADF that couldn't be better addressed by the money that a carrier would take? I sure as hell can. People bring up fictional scenarios about why we need a carrier. Great. I can bring up any number of realities about capabilities we DO need, but can't even apparently be funded.

Anyone remember the rapid route mine/IED clearing capability we were supposed to get? Where is that I wonder? I wonder if that might make a difference in Afghanistan when digs are getting blown up monthly from IED's?

I could go on, but my point is made. We are lacking SO many capabilities that it is pointless arguing for something that is going to be of usefulness in the LEAST likely operational scenario involving ADF, when we can't apparently fund the stuff we need for the current operations we're actualy doing...

 

[t68]

Aussie Digger.
Agreed with what you are saying in principle, but unless Ausgov gets serious with defence spending that’s not going to change.

The ADF has chronically been underfunded for far too long, case in point the government mandate of 20 billion in saving’s GF0012AUST touched on this very subject some time ago and if I recall he stated that the government gave a guarantee that money would not go into consolidated revenue, I am lead to believe that defence is meeting it obligations but as yet we don’t not see the money returned where its need most.

A lot of what you are say is actually happening across the service, Project Sea 4000 Air warfare destroyer (building) Project Sea 1000 replacement Submarines (expected 2025) Project Air 9000 24 navel combat helicopters (waiting on final outcome) Project JP 2048 Landing Helicopter Dock (building plus possible Bay class ex RN) Project Sea 1180 OCV (Armidale/Huon/Leeuwin/Paluma replacement) this only touches the surface on what navy needs alone now and into the future, these are currently budgeted for in the future under our present funding over time. If that 20 billion was reinvested in the nitty gritty side of the house (updated radio/air defence systems....). you said yourself some time ago Reserves do not need the high end kit that eats into their core training requirements moves valuable training time into maintenance of the said kit, which I get where you are coming from but knowing the kit inside and out is part of their training.

Looking at Canberra class as we all know is a tri service platform, a carrier in Australian service would also be a tri service platform predominately RAN/RAAF, with a fundamental shift in operational capability for the overall ADF, with rising tensions in the region from within and outside influence’s an overt show of force can have a calming effect on the situation, it’s nice to know the Australian submarine’s could be lurking in the nearby water, something’s need to be seen not just talked about, a presence felt so to speak. A maritime nation needs strong maritime approach.

 

[JoeMcFriday]

AD,
It is obvious you feel deeply about funding allocation ATM for the ADF. You're not alone in this concern.

However, this is what t68 first opened this thread with,

"Looking into what would a small navy like the RAN would acquire if the government of the day decided to increase in real terms the defence budget and wanted to get back into the carrier role."

Nothing said in this thread can impact on the real funding of the real ADF and I for one don't feel guilty as to speculating what might be if t68's hypothetical conditions had been met.

As for the real world Volkodav's list of generic arguments could be well applied to the list of shortfalls you highlight and the question "why does 'Canberra' not act upon them more expiditiously?" asked.
Many of us. I'm sure, would love to know the answer to that question.

I really don't think it's fair to accuse members posting in a clearly marked "hypothetical" thread of not being aware of the "real world" problems. Other threads, even on this site, highlight many of those issues you raise, perhaps not often enough.

Even the ADF has a policy/practice of engaging in "hypotheticals", doesn't it? Most of us would know them as 'war games', many of which would be considered unlikely but, as they may be unlikely, should the ADF discontinue discussing or planning for their possible occurrence?

Hypotheticals, I'm sure you know, must have real actors and locations to separate them from pure fiction. Just because we refer the Army, RAN and RAAF by title or unit in a hypothetical doesn't mean we are disregarding any problems they really have. It's just those concerns are better addressed outside of a hypothetical scenario.

I hope many of the problems you've raised do get addressed ASAP yet is it possible that political deniability may be a factor? ie. If the unit is not fully equipped it can't be offered to a coalition force?
Maybe I'm too much of a political cynic.

Cheers,
Mac

 

[Aussie Digger]

Aussie Digger.
Agreed with what you are saying in principle, but unless Ausgov gets serious with defence spending that’s not going to change.

The ADF has chronically been underfunded for far too long, case in point the government mandate of 20 billion in saving’s GF0012AUST touched on this very subject some time ago and if I recall he stated that the government gave a guarantee that money would not go into consolidated revenue, I am lead to believe that defence is meeting it obligations but as yet we don’t not see the money returned where its need most.

A lot of what you are say is actually happening across the service, Project Sea 4000 Air warfare destroyer (building) Project Sea 1000 replacement Submarines (expected 2025) Project Air 9000 24 navel combat helicopters (waiting on final outcome) Project JP 2048 Landing Helicopter Dock (building plus possible Bay class ex RN) Project Sea 1180 OCV (Armidale/Huon/Leeuwin/Paluma replacement) this only touches the surface on what navy needs alone now and into the future, these are currently budgeted for in the future under our present funding over time. If that 20 billion was reinvested in the nitty gritty side of the house (updated radio/air defence systems....). you said yourself some time ago Reserves do not need the high end kit that eats into their core training requirements moves valuable training time into maintenance of the said kit, which I get where you are coming from but knowing the kit inside and out is part of their training.

Looking at Canberra class as we all know is a tri service platform, a carrier in Australian service would also be a tri service platform predominately RAN/RAAF, with a fundamental shift in operational capability for the overall ADF, with rising tensions in the region from within and outside influence’s an overt show of force can have a calming effect on the situation, it’s nice to know the Australian submarine’s could be lurking in the nearby water, something’s need to be seen not just talked about, a presence felt so to speak. A maritime nation needs strong maritime approach.

True, but people who think a carrier wouldn't distort our current force structure, nor take away money and resources from these projects is kidding themselves. Not one Country on Earth that operates a proper carrier has an aviation force as small as ours and when people talk about using our existing fighters, carrier capable though they may be, they neglect to seriously focus on the detriment this will have to RAAF and the maintenance of it's required outputs.

Our current airforce is no larger in fighter numbers than it was when we did have a carrier and even then we equipped the carrier with it's own dedicated fighter fleet and didn't impinge on the RAAF's capability to meet it's taskings (not that RAAF had fighters suitable at the time, but they would have if they were required to provide for the carrier)...

In relation to reserves, don't mistake me, I don't have a problem with the decisions made at present about their lack of access to high end equipment, provided they are only intended as individual and perhaps sub-unit reinforcement roles for our existing strategically guided roles and taskings.

But people here are talking about developing capabilities for high end expeditionary warfare at extended ranges from Continental Australia and thinking that the presence of a carrier is all that is missing from ADF's ability to undertake this role, un-assisted by our allies!

Nothing could be further from the truth and whilst hypothetically talking about the utility or otherwise of a carrier is all well and good, if you are envisaging us undertaking such warfare with the still rather hollow-force behind it, then you are 'dreaming'...

 

[Volkodav]

I suppose the ultimate arguement that a carrier is doable for the ADF is that we are confident that we can adequately protect the virtually defenceless Canberras when they deploy carrying approximately a quarter of of regular land combat force. A carrier on the other hand would dramatically increase the defensive capability of any task force we deployed, providing an extreme outer layer air, surface and subsurface defence before you consider the fact you would also be able to reach out and touch a prospective enemy at even greater ranges.

The carriers air group would become the groups primary ISR, defensive and offensive asset, an asset we can legally position 200Nm off any coast in the world.

 

[Volkodav]

True, but people who think a carrier wouldn't distort our current force structure, nor take away money and resources from these projects is kidding themselves. Not one Country on Earth that operates a proper carrier has an aviation force as small as ours and when people talk about using our existing fighters, carrier capable though they may be, they neglect to seriously focus on the detriment this will have to RAAF and the maintenance of it's required outputs.

Our current airforce is no larger in fighter numbers than it was when we did have a carrier and even then we equipped the carrier with it's own dedicated fighter fleet and didn't impinge on the RAAF's capability to meet it's taskings (not that RAAF had fighters suitable at the time, but they would have if they were required to provide for the carrier)...

In relation to reserves, don't mistake me, I don't have a problem with the decisions made at present about their lack of access to high end equipment, provided they are only intended as individual and perhaps sub-unit reinforcement roles for our existing strategically guided roles and taskings.

But people here are talking about developing capabilities for high end expeditionary warfare at extended ranges from Continental Australia and thinking that the presence of a carrier is all that is missing from ADF's ability to undertake this role, un-assisted by our allies!

Nothing could be further from the truth and whilst hypothetically talking about the utility or otherwise of a carrier is all well and good, if you are envisaging us undertaking such warfare with the still rather hollow-force behind it, then you are 'dreaming'...

Definitely, I love to dream, infact I prefer to dream about what we could / should have done in the past, when we had more money for defense as well as a clearer more realistic threat.

It amazes me that in the space of a decade we dropped from three strike / reconnaissance, four (at times five) fighter attack and two MPA squadrons in the RAAF and an additional fighter attack and MPA / ASW squadron in the RAN FAA plus a number of combat capable OCUs to a single strike squadron, a single strike / reconnaissance / OCU squadron, three fighter attack squadrons, a single combat capable fighter attack OCU, two MPA and no fixed wing FAA at all. This happened before the first Classic Hornet entered service and at was the height of the cold war.

Then again the same thing happened in the fifties starting while our forces were still in combat in Korea, our carrier force was halved, the RAAF lost its reserve combat squadrons, the CMF lost their tanks and SPGs. A multitude of projects were delayed or cancelled, ships in refit were laid up never returning to service.

It unfortunately has always been the way in Australia, the services and even the branches / corps within the services are played off against each other to the detriment of all. Sadly it is usually the most flexible capabilities, those that make the greatest contribution to joint operations and are the greatest force multipliers that are cut because they lack the rusted on service specific staff support of the traditional force elements, fighters, primary surface combatants and Infantry.