Well, we nearly got a replacement carrier until the Labor axed it......I wonder what we would have done differently if the AWD were 10 years ahead of where they are now (ie building them in 2005). With only a gap of maybe 12 months between the Anzacs and the AWD. Particularly if we had built 4 of them.
I wonder if we would have been tempted to do a completely local build of the LHD following that. Oh well, too many what ifs.
Loss of carrier and reduction of the submarine force (planned) had a pretty big impact for the RAN. We would be one of the key players in both subs and carriers in the region. The usa for example might have been a much stronger partner in ET if we had two carriers and 8 subs from which to bring to the party. Its not like those capabilities would have been beyond our means either (either then or now).
I see Tony has held onto the reigns, so does this mean a local build of the subs is now much more likely? It would seem to be politically ideal if they could lock in construction of at least 8 subs (option of 4 more?) in the next 12 months. Ie before the next election.
But, I always wonder, if Australia has to choose between getting 8 more capable submarine build in Japan or 6 less capable submarine European submarine build in ASC, which one is better choice for the NAVY and Australia?
Personally, I would go for option J.