2 x CVS for 4 x oiler's.. Correct me if I'm wrong but are you implying we build them 4 x oiler's and they build us 2 x CVS?It quite the pity really that they did not expand it when the GFC was on, hypotheticaly speaking could have done a barter trade with the UK 2x CVS for 4x oilers, a run of 6-7 would have been welcome. Just need to look outside the box sometimes.
If not then ignore the rest of the post with my utmost apologies, If so though...
If the idea is we get them to build us 2 x CVS and we build them 4 x oiler's then while I'm sure the British would jump at it, We would actually be doing our selves a disservice.
At what would be a cost range of $13 - $14 billion excluding Australian specific changes industry wise we would be in the dumps under such a deal. Tonnage wise they are the same, Money spent they are not.
Even allowing worst case scenario of $1 billion a ship (Took prices for the HMAS Success, doubled them for ship twice the size and used inflation from 1986 through to 2015) paying the UK to build 2 x CVS should mean we are getting paid to replace there entire replenishment fleet and then some, Allowing for long term productivity and fingers crossed no political or outside industrial interference could be the value of replacing the entire RFA in which case even if financially they come out ahead I'm all for it as such a deal would have given us 14 ships to add to Australian production slots (give or take).
That though does depend on if we could man the carrier's, Would have required us to take the less crew demanding Mistrals instead of the Canberra's i'd imagine.