Originally Posted by MontyB

Why?

Aircraft Carriers are for the projection of power and Australia simply does not have the logistical capacity to project power outside of the much smaller states in the Pacific region which for the most part can be done with a couple a Destroyers. Australia like New Zealand have to understand that with tiny populations we are not going to be world military powers.

To true,

I think Australia should look to strengthen its ties with the more responsible countries in the Western Pacific to add to its already strong ties with the US military.
Neither of us can afford everything so a little cooperation might go a long way. For example, both South Korea and Japan have ships that can operate STOVL aircraft but neither have such an aircraft and there's a good chance they won't buy it. If Australia just gets STOVL aircraft, in the event that there is something that needs to be done in Southeast Asia, you could have Australian fighters operating off South Korean and Japanese carriers.
Might be a bit more realistic.

Originally Posted by Wallabies

Our jets can reach Jakarta, it's all good.

Which of course also means that theirs can reach our one (1) fighter base in the North. How good is that?

I can't imagine it would take that long to roll out a few temporary runways if it comes to it. Stretches of highway can be used for that purpose anyway.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

I can't imagine it would take that long to roll out a few temporary runways if it comes to it. Stretches of highway can be used for that purpose anyway.

Runways are no use at all if you have no planes.

The truth is, that unfortunately in peacetime we are a Military non event.

Ouch... that's gotta suck.
Seemed like the Australian military was doing a lot of things world wide though.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Ouch... that's gotta suck.
Seemed like the Australian military was doing a lot of things world wide though.

These low intensity regional wars are best training you can give your troops.

It seems that so long as we are not pitted against an overwhelming force, we seem to punch pretty well above our weight. Many of our best field strategies are learned in these places.

In my opinion, being involved in places like Timor and Afghanistan is probably one of the better decisions made by our normally lack lustre government.

And the decision to not get involved beyond giving out medicine is typical South Korean isolationism.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Why? ...

FOR A TARGET

(away from civilians, wouldn't matter if it was scrap metal too, who'd really know.)

Operational experience worldwide suggests that you need 2-3 carriers on the books in order to have one operational.
Australia currently spends, proportionately, 1/3 to 1/2 of that of NATO member states.
We also have the remote area bases in Queensland, NT and WA. The one in Queensland (Sherger) has been test activated a number of times, the other two at least once. these are essentially fully operational runways without electronic equipment. current estimates, with practical experience, are for 3-4 days before they become fully operational.
you can't operate jets from highways. firstly the road base and tarmac are not suitable for operating jets; secondly the amount of crap that gets sucked into the engines would lead to a breakdown very quickly. not to mention there are only so many roads up north- all would be needed for logistical efforts.
any interim fighter would require a big investment in spare parts, training and doctrinal adjustments. the decision to purchase the F/A -18F allows for use of a lot of existing parts for maintenance whilst reducing the amount of adjustment required for the pilots to operate the aircraft effectively.in my mind it would have been better to plump for some new build F-15's and F-16's ten years ago and then waited to see if the JSF F-35 was going to work. as it is we have put in nearly $500 million and have yet to have even an estimate of when they are coming.