Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Sea Toby]

While I am sure the navy wanted a third LHD to be used as a carrier, the government doesn't have the funds to do this properly with one, much less with two light carriers. With only one, Australia could end up with an asset mired in drydock or alongside during an extended maintenance period exactly when the asset is needed. Notice the Canterbury had to be buttoned up before her recent disaster relief mission.

The Tiger helicopters are very capable of fulfilling the close air support mission off the LHDs... I don't see what the F-35Bs bring more to fulfill the CAS mission. I am also very sure the RAAF will have won air superiority before the government introduced ground forces anywhere in the South Pacific...

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

While I am sure the navy wanted a third LHD to be used as a carrier, the government doesn't have the funds to do this properly with one, much less with two light carriers. With only one, Australia could end up with an asset mired in drydock or alongside during an extended maintenance period exactly when the asset is needed. Notice the Canterbury had to be buttoned up before her recent disaster relief mission.

One carrier is basically a PR exercise. It is useful for one off events if you have enough warning but the lack of persistence means that the capability isn't sustainable. Melbourne was a waste of money in many ways.

The Tiger helicopters are very capable of fulfilling the close air support mission off the LHDs... I don't see what the F-35Bs bring more to fulfill the CAS mission. I am also very sure the RAAF will have won air superiority before the government introduced ground forces anywhere in the South Pacific...

The F-35B is a quantum leap in CAS over an ARH, they are in different leagues in terms of capability. Firepower, sensors, payload, speed of action, range of action, versatility & survivability are all off the scale compared to an ARH. But unfortunately so its the cost and logistics footprint.

Again its a massive expenditure for a capability that we may not need in the realistic threat matrix the ADF will be contending with. Is it worth the extra money and the logistics cost considering limited logistical assets (only 2 LHD's)?

 

[agc33e]

The harrier is not re-entering production. The US and partner nations have invested too much into the F-35B program. The UK is building super carriers designed around the F-35B. The F-35B program is now back on track and there are already several early builds flying around.

The harrier is a subsonic aircraft. There are so few avalible that the UK can even get one with a radar and can barely keep what they have flying. They are training with Spain and the US so they can keep pilots and ground crews trained on how to fly them. So a sub sonic aircraft with no radar, no fancy targeting, limited range, no stealth (infact one of the most massive RS of all time), no networking, limited capacity for arms. We might as well buy spitfires.
--->Hence according to the characteristics and equipment, we can talk of 10 mill euros plus spare parts...:frown

The F-35B is many times a better aircraft and fighting machine. A single F-35B would be able to mission kill a whole carrier airwing of Harriers with ease. The F-35B has very few compromises over a top of the line 5th generation multirole fighter.
---->A single harrier with the radar, under the umbrella of the awd can shot a whole squadron of f35 without the need of using the awd missiles, and maybe also without the radar. let me say that the theoretical electronic superiority of the f35 jaming etc the radar of a superhornet has to be proven in praxis, i think.. and it does not infravalues the capacities of the superhornet in other tasks than to face a f35 in combat.

While the USN may concider the Harriers as "backups" Im sure the USMC might see it differently as front line CAS. The US made no attempts other than training to assist the UK out of its little harrier problem. They are not going to release the harriers until the F-35B's are there and they will get rid of the oldest, most shagged airframes first if for nothing else but safety concerns. Look at the harrier safety record, 5 harriers wouldn't last very long.
-----> Aircraft, harrier or f35b, or both, is useful for many things, also for the National Day for giving a 1000km/h pass for the crowd at 100 mts height, different weapons, capabilities add prestige and know-how to the ran, morally is fulfilling for the people in the ran, look here as many we would like to see aircraft in the camberras, and we are not profesionals..
----->they have ejecition seats i think, one thing that the tigers dont....
---->maybe us dont sell the ones with the radars, but australia is shoulder to shoulder with the us, suffering the afganistan (and irak?) trouble, australia is paying to us a loyalty and a human effort that can be rewarded..etc.
3 harriers would not offer the RAN anything viable other than training.
---->3 harriers are 18000 kgs of weaponry ....
As for tigers verse harriers, well I think for the ADF they would make a much more sensable buy for CAS and would be better at it and more deployable.

---->understable.

---->With respect to logistical problems to maintain the aircraft, human efforts are free, the ran pays a salary for a man that is with the anchor, and the same salary if he is learning the aircraft things, man resources are available, and economic budget as well.

Cheers.

 

[rockitten]

One carrier is basically a PR exercise. It is useful for one off events if you have enough warning but the lack of persistence means that the capability isn't sustainable. Melbourne was a waste of money in many ways.



The F-35B is a quantum leap in CAS over an ARH, they are in different leagues in terms of capability. Firepower, sensors, payload, speed of action, range of action, versatility & survivability are all off the scale compared to an ARH. But unfortunately so its the cost and logistics footprint.

Again its a massive expenditure for a capability that we may not need in the realistic threat matrix the ADF will be contending with. Is it worth the extra money and the logistics cost considering limited logistical assets (only 2 LHD's)?

Well, on the "hay days" of RAN in the 1970s, the DDGs (Perth class and Darling class) or the DE/frigates don't have any anti-ship missiles or helicopter hanger, so their real anti-ship and anti-sub capability are totally depends on the 5"/4.5" guns and ship sonar with Ikara. Therefor the HMAS Melbourne with its S-2 trackers, Sea king and Skyhawks on board, is the only mean for RAN doesn't being out ranged by the "then not so friendly" Indonesian missile boats and gun cruiser if the "emergency" or "confrontation" goes hot. Or keeping those Soviet and Chinese submarines on track during the cold war. Anti-air is a bit better as the Perth class have the SM-1 missile, but it can only engage one target at a time, so the skyhawk may also need for air defense as well because any enemy air raid more than a 2 ship formation will quite likely saturated the anti air capacity of our DDG..........

Now, RAN will soon to have at least 3 AWD, 8 large ANZAC replacement, 12 Collins replacement which have tactical tomahawks, SM2/ESSM and 2 LPD for extra hanger space if needed, in our region, probably only American, Russian, Japanese or may be the Chinese and Indians can launch a saturated attack to our fleet anyway. So how much extra can a "21 century HMAS Melbourne" carrier make I difference? I wonder if it justify the cost. If we really need a combat FAA, I will suggest we install harpoon missile (rather than hellfire or Penguin) instead..........

-
Anyway, by the 1970s, what's a balanced fleet RAN was, with the leopard tank, F-111, we nearly have a "dream team" for small nation if RAAF is having F-4E rather than Mirage III.....:gun

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Well, on the "hay days" of RAN in the 1970s, the DDGs (Perth class and Darling class) or the DE/frigates don't have any anti-ship missiles or helicopter hanger, so their real anti-ship and anti-sub capability are totally depends on the 5"/4.5" guns and ship sonar with Ikara. Therefor the HMAS Melbourne with its S-2 trackers, Sea king and Skyhawks on board, is the only mean for RAN doesn't being out ranged by the "then not so friendly" Indonesian missile boats and gun cruiser if the "emergency" or "confrontation" goes hot. Or keeping those Soviet and Chinese submarines on track during the cold war. Anti-air is a bit better as the Perth class have the SM-1 missile, but it can only engage one target at a time, so the skyhawk may also need for air defense as well because any enemy air raid more than a 2 ship formation will quite likely saturated the anti air capacity of our DDG..........

That’s all very true; although I think the A-4G's were also intended to provide air support for any expeditionary campaign in South East Asia in the event of hostilities with the communists. However none of that changes the problem of availability. In terms of real deployable capability we only had 1/2 or 1/3 of a carrier, as Melbourne had to split her time between deployment and the dock. Considering that I really wonder if, once Sydney was converted to a troop carrier, Melbourne became more of a status symbol.

Now, RAN will soon to have at least 3 AWD, 8 large ANZAC replacement, 12 Collins replacement which have tactical tomahawks, SM2/ESSM and 2 LPD for extra hanger space if needed, in our region, probably only American, Russian, Japanese or may be the Chinese and Indians can launch a saturated attack to our fleet anyway. So how much extra can a "21 century HMAS Melbourne" carrier make I difference? I wonder if it justify the cost.

I don’t think it is worth it. In any case the real utility of a carrier is the ability to really project power on an extra-regional scale; the offensive firepower provided by a squadron of F-35B's would massively outweigh TACTOM, but the fleet air defence roll can be effectively handled by SM-2/SM-6 and Aegis. Thus the real utility of a pocket carrier is inherently offensive.

If we really need a combat FAA, I will suggest we install harpoon missile (rather than hellfire or Penguin) instead..........

What do you mean? If we built a carrier we can realistically only use the F-35B (unless we want a 40,000 tonne 2 cat carrier which can deploy Rafael or Super Hornets), its the only STOVL platform that is about to enter into production. With JASSM equipping RAAF F-35's we have a far superior AShM than even a Harpoon BII.
-

Anyway, by the 1970s, what's a balanced fleet RAN was, with the leopard tank, F-111, we nearly have a "dream team" for small nation if RAAF is having F-4E rather than Mirage III.....:gun

I think the 80's and 90's were less kind to the ADF.

 

[Aussie Digger]

If we really need a combat FAA, I will suggest we install harpoon missile (rather than hellfire or Penguin) instead..........

Harpoon cannot be carried on any in-service or projected helicopter. It is simply too large and heavy. I presume you are aware that all RAN major surface combatants mount Harpoon Block II on the ships, rather than their air components?

If we want a helo armed with an ASuW weapon, it will have to be Hellfire, Penguin or something similar - (Marte Mk 2 or the new British/French weapon perhaps).

Anyway, by the 1970s, what's a balanced fleet RAN was, with the leopard tank, F-111, we nearly have a "dream team" for small nation if RAAF is having F-4E rather than Mirage III.....:gun

RAN had Leopard tanks???

I get what you mean though...

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think the 80's and 90's were less kind to the ADF.

That might be a tad harsh...

F/A-18's, Seahawks, Blackhawks, PC-9A's, ASLAV, B-707, M-198, L-118/9, RBS-70, C-130J-30, Hawk Mk 127, HMAS Kanimbla/Manoora, ANZAC Class frigates and Collins Class submarines, Harpoon ASM, Paveway laser guided bombs are just the big names...

 

[Todjaeger]

I don’t think it is worth it. In any case the real utility of a carrier is the ability to really project power on an extra-regional scale; the offensive firepower provided by a squadron of F-35B's would massively outweigh TACTOM, but the fleet air defence roll can be effectively handled by SM-2/SM-6 and Aegis. Thus the real utility of a pocket carrier is inherently offensive.

What do you mean? If we built a carrier we can realistically only use the F-35B (unless we want a 40,000 tonne 2 cat carrier which can deploy Rafael or Super Hornets), its the only STOVL platform that is about to enter into production. With JASSM equipping RAAF F-35's we have a far superior AShM than even a Harpoon BII.

Just a slight disagreement, but a CVH (helicopter carrier) has some ability for power projection, while also the ability to contribute greatly to the defence of a task force.

The Canberra-class LHD with hangar space for ~12 helicopters can, in that respect at least, act as a helicopter carrier. What I am not certain of is whether there is sufficient space for maintenance and parts, as well as munitions storage and fuel bunkerage aboard the Canberras to allow them to act as helicopter carriers. That and whether 12 helicopters would be sufficient.

What I have in mind would be for the CVH to be able to have at least two and preferably three or four helicopters aloft at all times. Of the helicopters which are in the air at any given moment, one would be tasked with AEW like the Italian Merlin Mk 112 or the RN Sea King ASaC.7 while the other one (or two or three) would provide an airborne ASW/ASuW screen.

Properly fitted, such an arrangement could significantly extend the sensor footprint of a RAN task force, allowing more options (and time) for a response.

Again, I do not know if such an arrangement could reasonably done with the LHDs on order, it is just something to consider. Particularly when considering the Future Naval Helicopter programme. From what I am aware of with respect to the MH-60R 'Romeo' the radar (APS-147 IIRC) does provide some air traffic tracking capability. If the RAN choses that helicopter, or an Australian variant of the NFH-90 with similar functionality, it might be worthwhile to expand the number required for the Future Naval Helicopter beyond the 24 currently desired to support the surface fleet.

It would be interesting to hear whether or no such an arrangement would overtax the helicopter capabilities of the LHD, or the FAA for that matter.

-Cheers

 

[icelord]

That might be a tad harsh...

HMAS Kanimbla/Manoora, ANZAC Class frigates and Collins Class submarines, Harpoon ASM, Paveway laser guided bombs are just the big names...

most were not exactly operational till the 00s.:tomato

 

[Aussie Digger]

most were not exactly operational till the 00s.:tomato

Fitted for but not with syndrome...

I tried to come up with the major platforms and weapon systems I could think of, off the top of my head that were ordered in the 80's and 90's.

It's an impressive list when you take the time to look at it...

 

[agc33e]

Lhd data:

"El buque dispondrá de área suficiente para la estiba de aeronaves en la cubierta de carga ligera y hangar, por ejemplo, podrá operar con 19 aviones de despegue en corto y aterrizaje vertical, o una combinación de 12 helicópteros antisubmarinos y 11 aviones, o unos 30 helicópteros medios de transporte, o con 10 helicópteros pesados" :

---->"in the hangar and continuous light load deck: 19 harriers, or 12 antisubmarine helicopters and 11 harriers, or 30 medium helicopter , or 10 heavy helicopters (i would say +)", and all this plus the amount parked in the flight deck.

"Existirá además un almacén de carga general de 325m2, pañoles de víveres con 475m2 de capacidad, pañol de repuestos con otros 225m2, pañoles de efectos con 190m2 y de munición con 600m2 de capacidad. Para la transferencia de carga y personal, el BPE, dispondrá de varios ascensores y montacargas."
-----> "general warehouse of 325 m2, for food 475 m2, for spare parts 225 m2, for effects (?) 190 m2, for munition 600 m2, with varioous lifts, munition lift +4000 kgs."

"- Gambuzas y pañoles de víveres: 220 t.
- Raciones de combate: 120 t.
- Almacenes generales: 75 t.
- Suministros y repuestos: 90 t. "
---->"foods 220 tonnes, combat rations 120 tonnes, general warehouse 75 tonnes, spare parts 90 tonnes"

" Diesel-fuel: 2.125 t.
- JP-5: 800 t.
- Aceite lubricante: 50 t.
- Agua potable: 475 t.
- Agua técnica: 10 t.
- Agua de lastre: 9.000 t."

Source: Asociación Milicias Navales Universitarias

A video in youtube with differente planes of the ship:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhcwloJsN4Y&feature=PlayList&p=6C136B6895AC4428&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=16"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

Cheers.

 

[agc33e]

Let me correct about the taurus missile, i found other information than the posted from the wiki before, i find ranges of 100 kms, and 350 kms., and the pasted of`+500 kms, and i read different versions of taurus as well, so i do not know the one that could fit a harrier or f35b or in the canberras.

I add that it seems that all of the us 99 harriers, are the night attack version, or with the radars, so good capabilities, and at least half of them with the radar, the first radar of the f18, that was removed from them.

I point out that if you have a cruiser and you buy 2 antisubmarine helicopters, with lamps III, etc, you need people for it, you have to pay salarys for the people, so it is the same with aircraft in the canberras, maybe you need 25 more salarys per month, and if you saved 300 mill euro, buying material and reserving some mill for some years salaries of the aircraft personel, probably you still have 150 mill left for the 4th which in 4 or 5 years might cristalyzed in another budget addittion... etc, meantime australia domesticates harriers while waiting for f35b. utility for aircraft comes from many unexpected situations, it is not just " 20 jets and a minicarrier or 60 jets and a queen elizabeth", you can have 3 and make many dirty jobs, all this is just hypotesis, playing in the fantasy...:smooth
Apologies for rounding a topic which is "suspicious", i try to be short.

Cheers..

 

[Bonza]

Let me correct about the taurus missile, i found other information than the posted from the wiki before, i find ranges of 100 kms, and 350 kms., and the pasted of`+500 kms, and i read different versions of taurus as well, so i do not know the one that could fit a harrier or f35b or in the canberras.

I add that it seems that all of the us 99 harriers, are the night attack version, or with the radars, so good capabilities, and at least half of them with the radar, the first radar of the f18, that was removed from them.

I point out that if you have a cruiser and you buy 2 antisubmarine helicopters, with lamps III, etc, you need people for it, you have to pay salarys for the people, so it is the same with aircraft in the canberras, maybe you need 25 more salarys per month, and if you saved 300 mill euro, buying material and reserving some mill for some years salaries of the aircraft personel, probably you still have 150 mill left for the 4th which in 4 or 5 years might cristalyzed in another budget addittion... etc, meantime australia domesticates harriers while waiting for f35b. all this is just hypotesis, playing in the fantasy...:smooth
Apologies for rounding a topic which is "suspicious", i try to be short.

Cheers..

Go to about page 170 of this thread, and read through to page 176, if you want to see where the debate about using a Canberra class as a carrier went last time. Seriously, I would recommend it as there's some excellent explanations as to the benefits and drawbacks of using a Canberra to support fixed wing air. As you'll be able to see there's far more drawbacks than there are benefits. You'll also see it's an issue that tends to heat up pretty quickly.

If you wish for further reading on the topic, check back through the various threads in the Navy forums. There's quite a few old threads with lots of information relevant to the topic.

 

[agc33e]

Thank you, i have read the pages it its moment, so apologies, i understand to ban a message that repeats itself, i mean i understand banning for some reasons but not for the topic itself, i think, if there are new comments, or new votes about a topic i find it ok, and if anyone it is not interested you can ignore the messege and continue, this is a place for many topics at the same time, there forum more serious and other less, etc.

Cheers.:rel

 

[Sea Toby]

Thank you, i have read the pages it its moment, so apologies, i understand to ban a message that repeats itself, i mean i understand banning for some reasons but not for the topic itself, i think, if there are new comments, or new votes about a topic i find it ok, and if anyone it is not interested you can ignore the messege and continue, this is a place for many topics at the same time, there forum more serious and other less, etc.

Cheers.:rel

Still the concept of having a few, 4-8 F-35Bs aboard the LHDs keep coming up. People see a flat top and want to make it a small carrier. While that many fighter jets may provide better close air support than a Tiger helicopter, a Tiger in my opinion brings more than enough close air support for the troops in an environment when air superiority has already been achieved. I can't ever imagine an Australian government willing to risk a thousand of their troops abroad anywhere without air superiority. If having the F-35Bs aboard the ship cuts the number of troops to be deployed, they aren't worth having. I can't imagine anywhere in the South Pacific where the RAAF's F-35As won't be available, if necessary from another island air base nearby under a UN mandate. So why bother to fly four F-35Bs off a LHD?

I repeat, the carrier the Australians missed the most in East Timor was the Sydney, not the Melbourne... The new LHDs will rectify that mistake.

 

[Bonza]

Still the concept of having a few, 4-8 F-35Bs aboard the LHDs keep coming up. While that many may provide better close air support than a Tiger helicopter, a Tiger in my opinion brings enough close air support for the troops in an environment when air superiority has already been achieved. I can't ever imagine an Australian government willing to risk a thousand of their troops abroad anywhere without air superiority. If having the F-35Bs aboard the ship cuts the number of troops to be deployed, they aren't worth having. I can't imagine anywhere in the South Pacific where the RAAF's F-35As won't be available, if necessary from another island air base nearby under a UN mandate. So why bother to fly four F-5Bs off a LHD?

Exactly. Then there's the issue of how much helicopter support the troops based from an LHD would receive anyway, if that LHD was configured to support persistent air operations from up to half a dozen F-35s. That's a whole hell of a lot of fuel and ammunition to be stored, and it all has flow-on effects.

ie more fuel/munitions for fast jets means less helicopter sorties available for:

Troop transport
Airlift of supplies
Casualty evacuation

Thus the process of configuring an LHD for F-35 operations undermines its capability to support extensive amphibious operations. Which is what they're designed for.

I think most telling is gf0012-aust's point in post #2626 when he said:

I have told you once - and am in a position to know - that RAN has no intention of getting stumpy JSF's. It's not planned for future ORBAT, the logistics requirements are not triggered., the training requirements are not triggered, the facilities requirements are not triggered. the doctrine development issues are not triggered. All of which require a 5-10 year lead in. Yet we have officers overseas engaged with friendly forces to look at how we employ these for amphib support and small war operations. No one has been sent off to learn about fixed wing combat issues as a doctrine development vector.

You just don't implement STOVL fixed wing combat requirements without triggering other critical paths of influence.

It's all well and good to hypothesize about carriers in the RAN, but at the end of the day if it's going to happen it's not going to be soon, and it's not going to be in the form of the Canberras. The capability they'd offer in the carrier role is negligible especially compared to the capability lost in configuring one for carrier operations, as opposed to using them in the job for which they're designed, and assigning necessary air cover or strike capability to other parts of the ADF.

 

[rockitten]

Harpoon cannot be carried on any in-service or projected helicopter. It is simply too large and heavy. I presume you are aware that all RAN major surface combatants mount Harpoon Block II on the ships, rather than their air components?

If we want a helo armed with an ASuW weapon, it will have to be Hellfire, Penguin or something similar - (Marte Mk 2 or the new British/French weapon perhaps).

Well, from the engine out-put of a S-70, it seems to me that it can really carry 2 Harpoon.....

By the way, does a SH-70R +Hellfire-II able to detect and engage targets overland? Imagine when RAN's SH-70R is hunting Somalian privates near the coast, and suddenly a Toyota Hilux "technical" shown up, and firing their heavy machine gun (or even SA-7) to our bird, will the HellFireII able to kill that?

-
Or to kill that Hilux, we have to pray that the driver of that pick-up is Jeremy Clarkson and his "invincible" Toyota Hilux is actually an amphibious Toybota?:

 

[1805]

Just a slight disagreement, but a CVH (helicopter carrier) has some ability for power projection, while also the ability to contribute greatly to the defence of a task force.

The Canberra-class LHD with hangar space for ~12 helicopters can, in that respect at least, act as a helicopter carrier. What I am not certain of is whether there is sufficient space for maintenance and parts, as well as munitions storage and fuel bunkerage aboard the Canberras to allow them to act as helicopter carriers. That and whether 12 helicopters would be sufficient.

What I have in mind would be for the CVH to be able to have at least two and preferably three or four helicopters aloft at all times. Of the helicopters which are in the air at any given moment, one would be tasked with AEW like the Italian Merlin Mk 112 or the RN Sea King ASaC.7 while the other one (or two or three) would provide an airborne ASW/ASuW screen.

Properly fitted, such an arrangement could significantly extend the sensor footprint of a RAN task force, allowing more options (and time) for a response.

Again, I do not know if such an arrangement could reasonably done with the LHDs on order, it is just something to consider. Particularly when considering the Future Naval Helicopter programme. From what I am aware of with respect to the MH-60R 'Romeo' the radar (APS-147 IIRC) does provide some air traffic tracking capability. If the RAN choses that helicopter, or an Australian variant of the NFH-90 with similar functionality, it might be worthwhile to expand the number required for the Future Naval Helicopter beyond the 24 currently desired to support the surface fleet.

It would be interesting to hear whether or no such an arrangement would overtax the helicopter capabilities of the LHD, or the FAA for that matter.

-Cheers

The main point here is that RAN is very unlikely to be involved in a major conflict without access to USN CVs Therefore the superior long range capability CVs provide will be available to ADF. The 3 hopefully 4 Destroyers should provide sufficient air cover for any independent operations where the RAN is unlikely to encounter a mass air/ssm threat. Is it worth the very high expense and the damage that may have on other key programmes to build CV

 

[StingrayOZ]

Again, I do not know if such an arrangement could reasonably done with the LHDs on order, it is just something to consider. Particularly when considering the Future Naval Helicopter programme. From what I am aware of with respect to the MH-60R 'Romeo' the radar (APS-147 IIRC) does provide some air traffic tracking capability. If the RAN choses that helicopter, or an Australian variant of the NFH-90 with similar functionality, it might be worthwhile to expand the number required for the Future Naval Helicopter beyond the 24 currently desired to support the surface fleet.

It would be interesting to hear whether or no such an arrangement would overtax the helicopter capabilities of the LHD, or the FAA for that matter.

As a helicopter carrier the Canberra class offers significant capabilities. It has the capability to support a very large airwing (like hangering all our tigers and half a dozen NH90's and a Chinook on deck) while still deploying a thousand troops. Throw in a few UAV's and you have a formidable airwing. The Canberra class has specific weapon handling lifts to rearm aircraft quickly. Tigers are a perfect choice for a LHD with folding blades, hellfires and a really impressively long range. We need more Tigers more than we need F-35B's.

There are so few air units in the region the RAAF could easily keep a lid on anything that would oppose the ADF. Of the 10 nearest countries (bar Singapore) of Australia you would be lucky to come up with a list of a dozen operational fighters of various vintages. The air superiority war would be very quick with waves of F-35's and Superhornets backed by refuellers, wedgetails and other supporting assets like JORN and long ranged muntions.

The ADF and the RAN have greater issues to address than a Fixed wing aircraft carrier.

 

[rockitten]

That might be a tad harsh...

F/A-18's, Seahawks, Blackhawks, PC-9A's, ASLAV, B-707, M-198, L-118/9, RBS-70, C-130J-30, Hawk Mk 127, HMAS Kanimbla/Manoora, ANZAC Class frigates and Collins Class submarines, Harpoon ASM, Paveway laser guided bombs are just the big names...

Well, many of these (especially the Collins and F/A-18s) are already on planning during the 70s and delivered on the 80s/90s. But the economic situation during the 80s and 90s do affects the military procurement plannings of ADF during the late 90s and 2000 periods. Just see how much technology edge we have loss from 1970 as one of the most advanced forces in the region, to becomes a "johnny comes lately" in the region on many equipments (such as AEGIS system, AWACS, Gunship helicopter...etc) can tell you how much impact the economic and change in political atmosphere at that 80s and 90s affected the ADF. Personally I feels lucky that ADF doesn't ended up like NZDF...........

Also, during that period, we have 2 very close and very big near miss too: The Kidd class DDG and (most importantly) the HMS Invincible, which ends up become the HMAS "Invisible" and HMAS "Kidding" due to international affairs and internal politics........If they are really becomes a reality, the ADF nowadays may be totally different.