China's first aircraft carrier 'starts sea trials'

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Badcooky

Hey as crazy old Josef Stalin once said.
"There's a quality to quantity"
And he had heaps of good big kids toys from about 1943 to 1953,got his sandbox back with them too.

It was different back then though, troop numbers were probably an armies most important asset.

But now it isn't, you can't send hundreds of thousands of troops to destroy an aircraft carrier, stealth bomber or cruise missile.

Technology is where its at now, but in saying that you still need soldiers to take and hold ground.

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by JG66ME

HMS HERMES. Fought in the Falklands. It is a better ship than the Melbourne ever was. Now about to be replaced. Australia turned it down.

Typical arrogant racist type comments. India will have three aircraft carrier battle groups by 2020. And do not say they cannot fight or they are thick.

What the? How was his comments racist exactly?

[JG66ME]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

What the? How was his comments racist exactly?

I do not think he intended to be racist but it appears that way when counties like India are dismissed when it comes to manufacturing.

Back on topic.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by JG66ME

HMS HERMES. Fought in the Falklands. It is a better ship than the Melbourne ever was. Now about to be replaced. Australia turned it down.

Typical arrogant racist type comments. India will have three aircraft carrier battle groups by 2020. And do not say they cannot fight or they are thick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hermes_(R12)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Viraat

India is about to become a world power. Australia is having a BBQ. We are telling ourselves how good we are.

I agree with you, but I had to have a laugh.

India's strategic defence will be let down by their communications.
Every radio call will begin with; "Good morning sir may name is Raj how are you today?" "Are you aware that we have a special offer at the moment on your satcom radio? It starts at $29.95 per month for unlimited calls to fixed satcoms and mobiles, with a 30 cent flagfall for each call. That's a good deal now sir isn't it. All I need now sir is your last phone bill and your date of birth........."

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

It was different back then though, troop numbers were probably an armies most important asset.

But now it isn't, you can't send hundreds of thousands of troops to destroy an aircraft carrier, stealth bomber or cruise missile.

Technology is where its at now, but in saying that you still need soldiers to take and hold ground.

The best weapon ever built is the AK47, stick it in the hands of a determined foe and all the technology in the world won’t stop him.....

[Pis-ton broke]

Originally Posted by JG66ME

down.

Typical arrogant racist type comments. India will have three aircraft carrier battle groups by 2020. And do not say they cannot fight or they are thick.

.

wasn,t meant as a racist comment, just an observation, maybe the Indian nation can do high quality manufacturing but i don,t see it much.

however i am a racist and proud of it.

[XESP351]

Geez that INS VIRAAT must be an absolute money pit, think it was a very wise decision from us not to take HERMES on.

[GK]

Originally Posted by JG66ME

HMS HERMES. Fought in the Falklands. It is a better ship than the Melbourne ever was. Now about to be replaced. Australia turned it down.

I'm not sure about that. My understanding is that we were about to purchase HMAS Invincible, which was an all but done deal, until the Falklands conflict.

From Wicki
"On 25 February 1982 the Australian government announced after several months of negotiations that it had agreed to buy Invincible for £175 million. The sale was confirmed by the Ministry of Defence.[5] The ship would have replaced the Royal Australian Navy's HMAS Melbourne and would have been renamed HMAS Australia.[6]

On 2 April 1982 Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and three days later a naval task force headed by Invincible and Hermes left Portsmouth bound for the South Atlantic. On 20 April 1982 the British War Cabinet ordered the repossession of the Falkland Islands."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Invincible_(R05)

GK

[Cashie]

Originally Posted by GK

I'm not sure about that. My understanding is that we were about to purchase HMAS Invincible, which was an all but done deal, until the Falklands conflict.

From Wicki
"On 25 February 1982 the Australian government announced after several months of negotiations that it had agreed to buy Invincible for £175 million. The sale was confirmed by the Ministry of Defence.[5] The ship would have replaced the Royal Australian Navy's HMAS Melbourne and would have been renamed HMAS Australia.[6]

On 2 April 1982 Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and three days later a naval task force headed by Invincible and Hermes left Portsmouth bound for the South Atlantic. On 20 April 1982 the British War Cabinet ordered the repossession of the Falkland Islands."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Invincible_(R05)

GK

HMS Invincable was about to be bought, but the Falklands made the UK realise they needed the extra carrier to maintain a repair/refit cycle.

We did look at Hermes earlier in 66 and again in 83 but turned it down

Proposed transfer to Australia

A 1966 review indicating that Hermes was surplus to operational requirements and was offered to the Royal Australian Navy as a replacement for HMAS Melbourne. In 1968, Hermes took part in a combined exercise with the RAN, during which the carrier was visited by senior RAN officers and Australian government officials, while RAN Skyhawks and Trackers practiced landings on the larger carrier.[2] The offer was turned down due to operating and manpower costs.

In 1983, when the proposed sale of HMS Invincible to the Royal Australian Navy was cancelled following the Falklands War, an offer was made to sell Hermes and a squadron of Sea Harriers to Australia. However the new Hawke government decided against purchasing a replacement for HMAS Melbourne.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hermes_%28R12%29

[JG66ME]

Originally Posted by Cashie

HMS Invincable was about to be bought, but the Falklands made the UK realise they needed the extra carrier to maintain a repair/refit cycle.

We did look at Hermes earlier in 66 and again in 83 but turned it down

In my view Hermes was in some ways better than Invincible. It is a lot larger, larger than Melbourne as well. Had a much larger aircraft capacity than Invincible (and Melbourne).

I know she was older but she was in reserve for the first ten years of her life and not commissioned until 1959.

Well it is all history now. Just a bit ironic that Invincible is being cut up in Turkey this year and Hermes is still in service.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Cashie

HMS Invincable was about to be bought, but the Falklands made the UK realise they needed the extra carrier to maintain a repair/refit cycle.

Also, the incoming Hawke Labor government cancelled the premise of having a replacement CV as they decided Australia didn't need aircraft carriers.

[thedutchman92]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Also, the incoming Hawke Labor government cancelled the premise of having a replacement CV as they decided Australia didn't need aircraft carriers.

What a silly idea that was, think how useful they could be now in the Persian Gulf, we could actually fly more sorties to support our troops instead of waiting on the yanks. Maybe we can pick up an old Nimitz class carrier for peanuts in a few years

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by thedutchman92

What a silly idea that was, think how useful they could be now in the Persian Gulf, we could actually fly more sorties to support our troops instead of waiting on the yanks. Maybe we can pick up an old Nimitz class carrier for peanuts in a few years

It underscores the change in defence thinking at the time and the philosophical differences between the "fortress Australia" camp (Labor) and "forward defence" (Liberal). Labor considered we didn't need carriers because we wouldn't be deploying our forces to regions that did not already have air cover, and that securing Australia's borders and approaches was more important. Labor built all the bare bases up north for example and built Tindal air base.

The Libs, particularly under Menzies and his successors believed forward defence was the key, having a flexible strike deterrent that could (independently) punish an aggressor way out in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea which would in turn nullify any future attack in time of crisis or war.

It's only now that they are seeing that a combination of both is necessary and that there is no one "plan" or "one size fits all" to account for all the threats Australia may face. Being able to deter or attack a potential threat out in the Indian Ocean (independently of anyone else) IMO is just as important as safeguarding our shores and if it were me, we wouldn't have bought those silly Canberra class LPD's, we would have a highly modified version of the new USS America LHA as a carrier using a navalised version of the Eurofighter (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(LHA-6) ) and two new LPD's like the US ones or the one we are getting at the end of the year (ex-HMS Largs Bay)

[thedutchman92]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

It underscores the change in defence thinking at the time and the philosophical differences between the "fortress Australia" camp (Labor) and "forward defence" (Liberal). Labor considered we didn't need carriers because we wouldn't be deploying our forces to regions that did not already have air cover, and that securing Australia's borders and approaches was more important. Labor built all the bare bases up north for example and built Tindal air base.

The Libs, particularly under Menzies and his successors believed forward defence was the key, having a flexible strike deterrent that could (independently) punish an aggressor way out in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea which would in turn nullify any future attack in time of crisis or war.

It's only now that they are seeing that a combination of both is necessary and that there is no one "plan" or "one size fits all" to account for all the threats Australia may face. Being able to deter or attack a potential threat out in the Indian Ocean (independently of anyone else) IMO is just as important as safeguarding our shores and if it were me, we wouldn't have bought those silly Canberra class LPD's, we would have a highly modified version of the new USS America LHA as a carrier using a navalised version of the Eurofighter (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(LHA-6) ) and two new LPD's like the US ones or the one we are getting at the end of the year (ex-HMS Largs Bay)

Not to mention the 1 out of 12 or so collins class subs that actually work! What a way to disrespect the name of Australia's greatest Admiral

[glavas]

See how history is once again repeating its self? people thought my uncle was crazy when he was saying in the 30's that japan would expand into south east asia. And now people think im crazy when i saw the same thing about china.They will need room and huge amounts of resources so the next 20-30 years could be a un easy time if they do. As patriotic as i am i will admit that the usa is vital for our survival from the two up and commers india and china.

My time in the army and my 12 weeks in vietnam taught me to never underestimate a enemy/nation no matter how primitive they may seem. which is what we did to japan.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by thedutchman92

What a silly idea that was, think how useful they could be now in the Persian Gulf, we could actually fly more sorties to support our troops instead of waiting on the yanks. Maybe we can pick up an old Nimitz class carrier for peanuts in a few years

Clearly this is getting way off topic now... but ok.. say we bought the Invincible all those years ago... prey tell what sort of aircraft would be used on there now 20yrs later?

We are talking about small carriers.... which were designed with the Harrier in mind. 20 odd years ago the navy had A-4 skyhawks which wouldve needed retiring sooner then later and what replacements would be available to fly off the Invincible? The Harrier would be the only aircraft available because of its small size. (I believe it can carry only 15 or so aircraft and 2 helicopters).

The US Harrier II eventually got radar (AV-8B Plus) while the Pommie Harrier II was still not radar equipped and thus limited to a daylight CAS role.

And if it was still in service (IF the government had bought it) it would of been refitted at least 3 times in service to keep up with technology advances and then retired as it would be well past its used by date and hardly what one calls an asset.

People keep forgetting how much money under the previous Liberal government defence blew on useless projects which numbered in the billions. Dont bring party politics into the thread.....people have selective memories.

[My poor XF]

Originally Posted by glavas

See how history is once again repeating its self? people thought my uncle was crazy when he was saying in the 30's that japan would expand into south east asia. And now people think im crazy when i saw the same thing about china.They will need room and huge amounts of resources so the next 20-30 years could be a un easy time if they do. As patriotic as i am i will admit that the usa is vital for our survival from the two up and commers india and china.

I'd rather Australia was in bed with china and India than the US at present. The US is in no position to help themselves let alone us. The two wars they are currently embroiled in and their lacklustre economy see to that.

The Chinese already practically own our resources anyway.

[thedutchman92]

let's bulk up our defences and get in bed with ourselves, yay for ultranationalism

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by thedutchman92

Not to mention the 1 out of 12 or so collins class subs that actually work! What a way to disrespect the name of Australia's greatest Admiral

There are 6 Collins Class boats, and they all work when they have enough personnel to put one to sea.

Also, the world is a different place now to what it was in colonial South-East Asia in the 1930's. Don't even bother comparing it because its a different kettle of fish. I'll dig out my posts from the old thread on this topic which explains it all if you like.

[XESP351]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

There are 6 Collins Class boats, and they all work when they have enough personnel to put one to sea.

Thank you.

I was going to chime in but i have been there and have had that argument before. Collins class subs DID have their teething problems. They are now absolutely world class. Period.

[Cashie]

Originally Posted by thedutchman92

Not to mention the 1 out of 12 or so collins class subs that actually work! What a way to disrespect the name of Australia's greatest Admiral

12, who has 12 Collins subs?
The 6 Australian subs do what they were designed to do now...

[Cashie]

Originally Posted by XESP351

Thank you.

I was going to chime in but i have been there and have had that argument before. Collins class subs DID have their teething problems. They are now absolutely world class. Period.

You made my point better than I...

[Cashie]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

....... if it were me, we wouldn't have bought those silly Canberra class LPD's, we would have a highly modified version of the new USS America LHA as a carrier using a navalised version of the Eurofighter (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(LHA-6) ) and two new LPD's like the US ones or the one we are getting at the end of the year (ex-HMS Largs Bay)

The USS America is a fair chunk bigger (displacement) than the LPAs.. Do look like a great platform though.
Could the RAN have manned them, doubt they will be able to effectively crew the LPAs.

[XESP351]

This is a proper Carrier...seen here RASing with an Aussie Frigate...

[XESP351]

Originally Posted by Cashie

The USS America is a fair chunk bigger (displacement) than the LPAs.. Do look like a great platform though.
Could the RAN have manned them, doubt they will be able to effectively crew the LPAs.

Seems that the Navy's recruitment drive is achieving the numbers and a lot of bodies are getting trained at Hastings (bit more than half graduate), so I doubt the manning issues are as bad as they used to be. Also sailors would climb on top of each other to serve on the new LHD's, big, comfortable and modern ships are very popular with sailors, HMAS SIRUIS had no problems with manning whatsoever just because it was new and comfortable.

Subs are a different story though...

[thedutchman92]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

There are 6 Collins Class boats, and they all work when they have enough personnel to put one to sea.

Also, the world is a different place now to what it was in colonial South-East Asia in the 1930's. Don't even bother comparing it because its a different kettle of fish. I'll dig out my posts from the old thread on this topic which explains it all if you like.

I stand corrected, last time I rely on my memory from a news bulletin 2 years ago haha.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by thedutchman92

I stand corrected, last time I rely on my memory from a news bulletin 2 years ago haha.

You were probably thinking of the news bulletin that said they wanted to replace the Collins with up to 12 new subs.

[thedutchman92]

These new Aegis capable destroyers look very formidable, one is already in production

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by My poor XF

I'd rather Australia was in bed with china and India than the US at present. The US is in no position to help themselves let alone us. The two wars they are currently embroiled in and their lacklustre economy see to that.

The Chinese already practically own our resources anyway.

No way, the US still has the might and technology, it just won't be as influential as in previous times, the US would not sit on its hands if Australia needed assistance. We need the US as an ally like you wouldn't believe, they are the ones that spend the mega amounts of money and Australia gets to sleep soundly at night, if we did not have the USA's backing I don't even want to think about how much more money Australia would have to increase on military spending.

[My poor XF]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

No way, the US still has the might and technology, it just won't be as influential as in previous times, the US would not sit on its hands if Australia needed assistance. We need the US as an ally like you wouldn't believe, they are the ones that spend the mega amounts of money and Australia gets to sleep soundly at night, if we did not have the USA's backing I don't even want to think about how much more money Australia would have to increase on military spending.

I think you missed my point, I'm not saying we shouldn't remain allied with the US I'm saying it's in our best interests to decrease the need and focus on our regional powers. A technological advantage will always lose to sheer weight of numbers. Ask Germany and Japan.

Besides the Chinese would be far further along technologically than we all believe. You get that when you have no regard for intellectual property's.