HMAS Canberra

[goodwoodrw]

Here an brief, but interesting article on the the RANs newest ship.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/technology/ ... 6879947885

[jtoatoktoe]

Why does it have a ski jump style ramp? They planning on getting some F-35's some day?

[goodwoodrw]

No fixed wing loadouts planned, I guess keeping their options open though. The current government just announced they are reconsidering the purchase of 12 home built subs. Also they want to cut back the defence budget to 2% of GDP. Certainly won't be any bikkes in the biscuit jar to purchase much at all if that's the case.

[Maromak]

I think it was just a case of saving money by not redesigning the deck to remove the ski jump.

[Blu3wolf]

ORIGINAL: BASB

No fixed wing loadouts planned, I guess keeping their options open though. The current government just announced they are reconsidering the purchase of 12 home built subs. Also they want to cut back the defence budget to 2% of GDP. Certainly won't be any bikkes in the biscuit jar to purchase much at all if that's the case.

*ahem*

Thats INCREASE the budget to 2% of GDP. We presently spend around 1.4% of GDP on defense.

Could you provide the link to the DoD press release over the ASC contract for submarines?

I note also that the government has several times stated that they will not be purchasing B model F-35s. If anything, any more than the 14 contracted F-35A's are in serious danger of being cancelled.

[goodwoodrw]

Yes I stand corrected, sometimes I think I'm dislexic when it comes to Stats.
Sorry no I can't it was a discussion Minister Johnson had on ABC radio last Wednesday. not definate as he stated Australia were looking at all avenues, and were reviewing and all policies made by the former government. The relese of the new defence paper next year will be taken into account he said.
I will see if I can find this discuss online on the ABC sight.

[NickD]

ORIGINAL: Maromak

I think it was just a case of saving money by not redesigning the deck to remove the ski jump.

Yes, that's correct. Apparently the ski jump is an important structural feature of the design, and removing it would have required lots of expensive design work (and increased the risks associated with this project).

[cwemyss]

ORIGINAL: NickD

ORIGINAL: Maromak

I think it was just a case of saving money by not redesigning the deck to remove the ski jump.

Yes, that's correct. Apparently the ski jump is an important structural feature of the design, and removing it would have required lots of expensive design work (and increased the risks associated with this project).

And would have taken away options.

Never say "never". AU1 and AU2, the first two Australian F-35As, are slated to deliver this year, I think. Withhold judgement until your operators actually get hands-on experience, until the cost of and-on production jets is known, until we know exactly what China has in mind for their fleet, and until we see what happens to the US fleet.

It could be that in a decade, US congressional deadlock and budget neglect have met rising Chinese belligerence halfway, and a dozen F-35Bs suddenly look like a relatively cheap/quick way to get some badly needed F/W aviation into the RAN.

[NakedWeasel]

She's a beautiful design. Remember, Australian brothers, you have a very big, very caring friend on the other side of the Pacific. We know that you'll do whatever is necessary to hold the line. You should never forget that if you ever really need us, you can count on us being there to back you up.

Love my Aussies! ( and the Kiwis too! )

[NickD]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

She's a beautiful design. Remember, Australian brothers, you have a very big, very caring friend on the other side of the Pacific. We know that you'll do whatever is necessary to hold the line. You should never forget that if you ever really need us, you can count on us being there to back you up.

Hold the line against who? Also, the ANZUS treaty contains no guarantees of US support in the event of a perceived threat to Australia, and the US Government has never offered this to Australia through other channels.

[Dobey455]

ORIGINAL: NickD


Hold the line against who? Also, the ANZUS treaty contains no guarantees of US support in the event of a perceived threat to Australia, and the US Government has never offered this to Australia through other channels.

Treaties are written by lawyers and politicians so you'll be very lucky to find too many that don't give the members the option to not get involved under certain circumstances.

Note that it works both ways - Australia is also not obliged to assist the US. For all parties the treaty talks only of "consulting"

Personally, I do believe that if Australia were under direct threat the US would lend a massive amount of military assistance.
You might remember we actually have been alone and under direct threat before, and guess who DID help?

I do agree that any similar threat in the near future is incredibly unlikely, but that's not really the point.

[jdkbph]

ORIGINAL: Dobey
Personally, I do believe that if Australia were under direct threat the US would lend a massive amount of military assistance.

I do believe that if the will of the American people means anything at all where it comes to decisions like this, that's a given.

JD

[NickD]

ORIGINAL: Dobey

Personally, I do believe that if Australia were under direct threat the US would lend a massive amount of military assistance.
You might remember we actually have been alone and under direct threat before, and guess who DID help?

The US Government turned down Australia's request for assistance against a perceived threat from Indonesia (including a widely-feared invasion of Australian-administered Papua New Guinea) in the early 1960s. The US also didn't agree to the Australian Government's request that it put "boots on the ground" during the intervention into East Timor in 1999, though it did provide important logistical support (and stationed a MEU nearby in case it was needed). The US was right that Australia was being overly-paranoid in both cases, but it illustrates that Australian policy makers can't take US military assistance for granted in the kinds of circumstances we could feasibly face in the future given that there is no likelihood of a serious direct attack.

I'm a supporter of the Australia-US alliance, but Australia can't rely on the US to provide assistance during periods of perceived danger given that the US government has differing views and other calls on its resources. And vice-versa, of course.

[NakedWeasel]

Well, if you all can't/won't count on the US as an ally, I suppose the world must look like a very big, scary place for Australia. Good luck out there! [:D]