Royal Australian Navy Wishlist blunder...

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Now admittedly, this article is a little bit of a beat up as this website (and it's associated papers) has shown little, if any knowledge of defense matters in the past...

 

...but when your government is looking to shave something like 10 billion of defense force 'fat' and redirect it back to the ADF in more efficient and effective ways, the last thing that anyone wants to see is this...

 

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23426041-421,00.html

 

Take the $100mil for fighters off that tally toward the end (the Aud $4 billion one) since we're already buying the fighters. No need to count them twice...

[Panjilucu 0]

Hi there! i'm from Indonesia (completely no offense)

 

My opinion: just upgrade your Collins SS with cruise missile launching capability (adding VLS maybe), something like UGM-109 tomahawk will give a damn very nice punch. No need for aircraft carrier, just add the 2-seat F-18D super hornet or EA-18 Growler to your navy airwing. and... integrating your (if i'm not mistaken) Over-The-Horizon Radar with every HMAS warship

[+Gocad 26]

Not to mention that when you buy one aircraft carrier you soon will feel the need for another.

As long as you're serious about it.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Not to mention that when you buy one aircraft carrier you soon will feel the need for another.

As long as you're serious about it.

 

Well having a carrier wouldn't necessarily be so bad in that it would make airborne and integrated ops between the services much easier and more flexible. Sending aircraft and personnel overseas is a complicated and expensive process and there are many situations that would favour carrier ops over land based ones. The UK has shown this to be the case with light fleet carriers and they've been a very effective tool. In all likelihood, only one of the new Canberra class flatdecks would possibly be used as a part time carrier in the same vein as the USMC/Navy 'Harrier carriers', but this is totally dependent on the M.O.D. buying STOVL variants... but it's pretty unlikely that we'd have a part time carrier for our overseas commitments.

 

It's an interesting article considering there was another story on the ABC News site today about Minister Fitzgibbons still probing US officials to see about possibly buying F-22s. Because that makes sense; Trimming down defence waste by buying a different type of stealth fighter that's almost double the price...

 

Oh, and Panjilucu, why would we be offended dude? Indonesians, Malaysians, Kiwis, Aussies... we all rock! We live in the best neighborhood on the planet!

[JediMaster 451]

I guess they feel the F-22 will do what they want more than the F-35 will, despite them not knowing most of what the F-22 could do anyway?

Besides, if it succeeds the F-35 will be more advanced than the F-22 by virtue of being a 15 years newer design.

 

Not that it matters as Congress seems dead set against anyone else having F-22s, and by the way they complain about the price that seems to include the USAF as well.

Maybe Congress would allow a situation like we used to have with nukes in the 50s? Where we had US-controlled nukes stationed on foreign bases for use by foreign air forces with US approval... In other words, the planes are paid for by the gov't that wants them and operate as part of that gov'ts air force, but are crewed and maintained by USAF forces to prevent "security breaches". Granted it sounds like a raw deal as you spend the money but only get to give orders, but if you TRULY believe "only the F-22 will do", this may be a way to appease the paranoids in Congress.