I am not defence expert but seeing our remoteness from the rest of our neighbours, would it not make sense to have a naval capability to deliver aircraft? Throw in some long range stuff like the missiles suggested as well from sub platforms. Really, it makes sense to me as an observer. I am guessing the RAAF would not be happy if being the AIRforce, they were turned into something like the kiwi airfarce.

Well I guess its not a secret anymore then!:D

Going Boeing.....I think that's basically what RW said.....

Buster....I didn't think so....

I meant of course that as a greeny his inclination would be to want a solar powered sub.....that is opposed to a coal powered sub:E

PAF....

I guess then that you are saying that Navy chief Vice Admiral Russ Shalders is independent & impartial and able to objectively advise the Government.

During my stint with the 'Gray Funnel Line' (immediately post HMAS Melbourne and Invincible) the 'rumour' going around was that the USN was about to offer us (the RAN) the USS Oriskany or something similiar.

Now I see the rumour is for the K'Hawk.

Gotta love those buzzes.

We need an aircraft carrier about as much as we need 100 x JSF's! I truly hope we don't buy either. I can barely stomach the backflip on the Super Hornet.

The Navy couldn't organise a chook raffle. They can barely crew or maintain half their fleet now. Refits are continually way overschedule and over budget. They cannot retain the few well trained people that they do have and all they are left with is the dead wood.

So what do they want to do? Buy even more complex and large platforms that they will be unable to crew and maintain to any decent standard.

They'd be better off filling up a couple of hercs with $100 notes and dropping them all over South East Asia to keep the neighbours onside!!

If the Navy were an airline they'd be grounded. To be fair though, They probably work OK when their being shot at!!

after having recently spent 9 years with the navy what is being said on this forum is basically the truth. The navy can spend as much as it wants on new platforms, but unless they consider real retention alternatives there is going to be no-one to crew them.

they already have subs tied up alongside at Stirling due to lack of crew.

If they buy a aircraft carrier, its the last time my boat is going to Sydney Harbour:sad::sad:!

I am by no means a defence expert so can someone answer my question. If I have in flight refuelling, a long range type and long range standoff weapons. What does an aircraft carrier give me in a regional conflict that these things don't? What is the tactical advantage of something that I'll have to use a heap of resources to protect that can be achieved by using other means? Or can it?. Again if the answer is an easy one please let me know. I'm not up to speed with the tactical thinking in this regard.

For an Island nation I have always wondered why we didnt have an aircraft carrier.... with the exception of RAAF base Tidnal all our air capability seems a long way from our potential threats. Landing a Hornet on a carrier, sounds like fun to me :ok:

There are skeleton bases all around the Top End.

Maybe you all missed the bit about the V/STOL aspect. Won't be any hornets landing on these boats.

The journo can't add up his billions, neither.

W.O.G. - I guess all I can come up with is that whilst you have the refuelling etc, it's still a long way there & a long way back...not a lot of missions can be run if they have to travel so far. The carrier affords frequency of missions at the very least, although I do understand your valid point.

A bit like sending "gunboat up river" perhaps....


Anyways....I don't care much for the song, but these look nice!

Surely any vessel named HMAS Dr.Bob Brown would suffer from excessive
leaking due to friction of the shaft on the stern gland and stuffing box?

Would that inhibit its ability to go down, below?:confused:

The seamen would have to escape somehow .

Maybe the Navy wants some of these?